Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, 27256-27264 [2010-11387]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27256-27264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11387]



[[Page 27256]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15 and 76

[CS Docket No. 97-80; PP Docket No. 00-67; FCC 10-61]


Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices; Compatibility 
Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose new rules designed to improve the 
operation of the CableCARD regime in the interim until the successor 
solution becomes effective. As discussed in a companion Notice of 
Inquiry, the Commission has not been fully successful in implementing 
the command of Section 629 of the Communications Act to ensure the 
commercial availability of navigation devices used by consumers to 
access the services of multichannel video programming distributors 
(``MVPDs''). The Notice of Inquiry begins the process of instituting a 
successor to the CableCARD regime that has been the centerpiece of the 
Commission's efforts to implement Section 629 to date.

DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before June 14, 2010; 
reply comments are due on or before June 28, 2010. Written PRA comments 
on the proposed information collection requirements contained herein 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before July 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CS Docket No. 97-80; 
and PP Docket No. 00-67, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
PRA comments on the proposed collection requirements contained herein 
should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail 
to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and 
Budget, via e-mail to nfraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the 
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120 or Alison Neplokh, 
Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Engineering Division, 
(202) 418-1083.
    For additional information concerning the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 
or contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
    To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request 
(ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web 
page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under 
Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from 
the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click 
the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and 
(6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for 
the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section below (or its title if there is no OMB control 
number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC 
submission to OMB will be displayed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 10-61, adopted and 
released on April 21, 2010. The full text of this document is available 
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These documents will also 
be available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 
The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. 
To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, 
large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    This document contains proposed revised information collection 
requirements. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the 
general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following 
information collection(s). Public and agency comments are due July 13, 
2010.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0849.
    Title: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 958 respondents; 511,729,510 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.000278--40 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly, monthly and semi-
annual reporting requirements; Recordkeeping and third party disclosure 
requirements.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. 
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 629 of the

[[Page 27257]]

Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    Total Annual Burden: 186,287 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $137,550.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality with this collection of information.
    Needs and Uses: On April 21, 2010, the FCC released a Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-61, which proposes new 
rules to improve the CableCARD regime. One proposed rule would require 
cable operators to bill their subscribers separately for CableCARDs. 
This proposed rule is intended to ensure that consumers are charged 
equal and transparent prices for CableCARDs, in furtherance of Section 
629 of the Communications Act.

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry

I. Introduction

    1. As discussed in the companion Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-61, the 
Commission has not been fully successful in implementing the command of 
Section 629 of the Communications Act to ensure the commercial 
availability of navigation devices used by consumers to access the 
services of multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs''). 
The Notice of Inquiry begins the process of instituting a successor to 
the CableCARD regime that has been the centerpiece of the Commission's 
efforts to implement Section 629 to date. In this Fourth Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose new rules designed to improve the 
operation of the CableCARD regime in the interim until the successor 
solution becomes effective.
    2. To implement the mandate of Section 629, the FCC adopted rules 
in its First Report and Order, 63 FR 38089, that required MVPDs to make 
available a conditional access element separate from the basic 
navigation or ``host'' device, to enable unaffiliated entities to 
manufacture and market host devices while allowing MVPDs to protect 
their networks from harm or theft of service. The Commission later 
adopted standards in its Second Report and Order, 68 FR 66728, that 
largely reflected the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between 
cable operators and the consumer electronics industry to establish the 
technical details of the conditional access element, resulting in the 
creation of the CableCARD. The CableCARD is a security device provided 
by the cable provider and inserted into a retail navigation device 
(including digital cable ready televisions) bought by a consumer in the 
retail market or a set-top box leased from the cable provider.
    3. Unfortunately, in practice, cable customers who purchase retail 
navigation devices and connect these devices to their cable service 
using CableCARDs for conditional access typically experience additional 
installation and support costs and pay higher prices than those who 
lease set-top boxes from their cable company. Accordingly, in this 
Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on 
proposed rules designed to remove this disparity in the subscriber 
experience for those customers who choose to utilize a navigation 
device purchased at retail as opposed to leasing the cable providers' 
set-top box.
    4. Additionally, the Second Report and Order included rules 
requiring a specific interface on leased set-top boxes to allow 
recording on digital recording devices. Multiple parties have raised 
concerns about whether the rule is specific enough to be effective and 
whether other interfaces could equally achieve this purpose. Therefore, 
we seek comment on proposed rules to more fully specify the 
functionality of this interface and to enable other interfaces as well.
    5. Finally, we seek comment on proposed changes to our rules that 
are intended to encourage cable operators to use their capacity more 
efficiently by transitioning the systems to all-digital. All of these 
proposed rules are intended to further the goals of Section 629.

II. Background

    6. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress added Section 
629 to the Communications Act. That section directs the Commission to 
adopt regulations to ensure the commercial availability of navigation 
devices used by consumers to access services from MVPDs. Section 629 
covers ``equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video 
programming and other services offered over multichannel video 
programming systems.'' Congress, in enacting the section, pointed to 
the vigorous retail market for customer premises equipment (``CPE'') 
used with the telephone network and sought to create a similarly 
vigorous market for devices used with MVPD services.
    7. In 1998, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order to 
implement Section 629. The order required MVPDs to make available a 
conditional access element separate from the basic navigation or host 
device, in order to permit unaffiliated manufacturers and retailers to 
manufacture and market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain 
control over their system security. The technical details of this 
conditional access element were to be worked out in industry 
negotiations. In 2003, the Commission adopted, with certain 
modifications, standards on which the National Cable and 
Telecommunications Association and the Consumer Electronics Association 
had agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU''). The MOU 
prescribed the technical standards for one-way (from cable system to 
customer device) CableCARD compatibility. The CableCARD is a security 
device provided by an MVPD, which can be inserted into a retail 
navigation device bought by a consumer in the retail market to allow 
the consumer's television to display MVPD-encrypted video programming. 
To ensure adequate support by MVPDs for CableCARDs, the Commission 
prohibited MVPDs from integrating the security function into set-top 
boxes they lease to consumers, thus forcing MVPDs to rely on CableCARDs 
as well. This ``integration ban'' was initially set to go into effect 
on January 1, 2005, but that date was later extended to July 1, 2007.
    8. Unfortunately, the Commission's efforts to date have not 
developed a competitive retail market for retail navigation devices 
that connect to subscription video services. Most cable subscribers 
continue to use the traditional set-top boxes leased from their cable 
operator. Although following adoption of the CableCARD rules some 
television manufacturers sold unidirectional digital cable-ready 
products (``UDPCs''), most manufacturers have abandoned the technology. 
Indeed, since July 1, 2007, cable operators have deployed more than 
18.5 million leased devices pre-equipped with CableCARDs, compared to 
only 489,000 CableCARDs installed in retail devices connected to their 
networks. Furthermore, while 605 UDCP models have been certified or 
verified for use with CableCARDs, only 37 of those certifications have 
occurred since the integration ban took effect in July 2007. This 
indicates that many retail device manufacturers abandoned CableCARD as 
a solution to develop a retail market before any substantial benefits 
of the integration ban could be realized.
    9. Not only were there very few retail devices manufactured and 
subsequently purchased in the retail market, but there was an 
additional complication with the installation process that depressed 
the retail market. The cable-operator-leased devices come pre-equipped 
with a CableCARD, so that no subscriber

[[Page 27258]]

premises installation of the card is required. But this is not the case 
with devices purchased at retail. CableCARDs must be professionally 
installed in those devices by the cable operator. Unfortunately, the 
record reflects poor performance with regard to subscriber premise 
installations of CableCARDs in retail devices. This could be a 
consequence of the fact that only 1% of the total navigation devices 
deployed are purchased at retail and require an actual CableCARD 
installation, which may have made it difficult to properly train the 
cable installers. It could also reflect either an indifference or a 
reluctance by cable operators to support navigation devices purchased 
at retail in competition with their own set-top boxes. Regardless of 
the cause, these serious installation problems further undermined the 
development of a retail market.
    10. The Commission anticipated that the parties to the one-way MOU 
would negotiate a further MOU to achieve bidirectional compatibility, 
using either a software-based or hardware-based solution. When the 
Commission realized in June 2007 that negotiations were not leading to 
an agreement for bidirectional compatibility between consumer 
electronics devices and cable systems, it released a Third Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on competing proposals 
for bidirectional compatibility and other related issues. In the wake 
of the Two-way FNPRM, the six largest cable operators and numerous 
consumer electronics manufacturers negotiated an agreement for 
bidirectional compatibility that continues to rely and builds on 
CableCARDs by using a middleware-based solution called ``tru2way.''

III. Discussion

    11. In this Fourth FNPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules 
designed to improve the CableCARD regime during the time in which it 
will remain in effect. Specifically, we seek comment on whether market-
based solutions serve consumers adequately with respect to switched-
digital video and we propose rules that would (i) require that 
equivalent prices be charged for CableCARDs for use in cable-operator-
provided set-top boxes and in retail devices, and require billing of 
the CableCARD to be more transparent; (ii) simplify the CableCARD 
installation process; (iii) require cable operators to offer their 
subscribers CableCARDs that can tune multiple streams; and (iv) 
streamline the CableCARD device certification process. As noted, we 
also propose a change to our existing output requirement rules to 
ensure set-top box compatibility with retail consumer devices, and we 
propose changes to our rules that are intended to encourage cable 
operators to use their capacity more efficiently by transitioning the 
systems to all-digital.
    12. Reforming the CableCARD System. NCTA suggests that the 
Commission seek comment on whether the CableCARD has become outdated. 
NCTA explains that physical dimensions and components of the CableCARD 
are based on a standard that is more than a decade old and that new 
technologies, such as IPTV, are moving away from the CableCARD's 
traditional hardware-based security model. Accordingly, we seek comment 
on whether technical developments over the last decade have overtaken 
the CableCARD model. While we recognize that CableCARD is an aging 
technology with certain limitations, we also understand that the cable 
and consumer electronics industries have invested heavily in the 
technology as both an unidirectional and bidirectional solution, and we 
do not believe that it needs to be abandoned in the near-term. To the 
contrary, we hope to build on this technology with relatively minor 
adjustments to our existing CableCARD rules to extend the viability of 
the CableCARD while the Commission works to establish a successor 
solution for retail navigation device compatibility with MVPD services. 
We seek comment on the Commission's tentative conclusion that CableCARD 
is not a viable long-term solution for the current lack of 
compatibility between MVPD services and retail navigation devices, and 
on the Commission's proposal to reform the CableCARD system as an 
interim solution as we work toward a new model that will provide for 
that compatibility. Given the Commission's predictive judgment 
regarding the CableCARD regime, we also seek comment on a reporting 
requirement that we imposed in 2005, directing NCTA and the Consumer 
Electronics Association to file quarterly status reports on the status 
of their two-way negotiations. Should we continue that requirement? If 
so, should we make any changes to it? In a similar vein, we encourage 
commenters to update the record on petitions seeking reconsideration of 
the Commission's Second Report and Order in this proceeding. Have there 
been technological or marketplace developments since 2004 that the 
Commission should consider or developments that render any of the 
issues in those petitions for reconsideration moot?
    13. The Commission's National Broadband Plan made certain 
recommendations designed to provide benefits to consumers who use 
retail CableCARD devices without imposing unfair regulatory burdens on 
the cable industry. The plan suggested that these changes could serve 
as an interim solution that will benefit consumers while the Commission 
considers broader changes to develop a retail market for navigation 
devices. We view these interim steps as an important bridge to the 
implementation of a successor technology, and we believe that these 
reforms will address problems immediately with relatively little cost. 
Specifically, the Plan recommended that the Commission take five steps 
to solve problems associated with the Commission's current CableCARD 
rules: (i) Ensure equal access to linear channels for retail and 
operator-leased CableCARD devices; (ii) mandate equivalent and 
transparent prices for CableCARDs; (iii) ensure that CableCARD 
installations provide a substantially similar consumer experience to 
operator-leased set-top box installations; (iv) require operators to 
offer multi-stream CableCARDs to their subscribers; and (v) streamline 
and accelerate the certification process for retail CableCARD devices. 
We seek comment on proposed rules to implement these recommendations as 
discussed below.
    14. Switched Digital Video. UDCPs with a CableCARD today cannot 
access linear channels delivered by cable operators using switched-
digital technology. Private industry negotiations have led to a market-
based solution to allow certain types of UDCPs to access switched-
digital programming through operator-provided tuning adapters. We seek 
comment on whether this market-based solution is working and whether 
UDCP manufacturers and cable operators are meeting their obligations 
under that agreement. We seek comment on the cost of the tuning 
adapters to consumers and cable operators, and any provisioning 
challenges with the tuning adapters. We also seek comment on whether 
any Commission action is necessary to ensure consumers with UDCPs have 
access to linear channels delivered through switched-digital 
technology. TiVo has suggested that an alternative solution would be to 
require cable operators to allow retail CableCARD devices to receive 
out-of-band communications from the cable head-end and transmit out-of-
band communications to the headend over IP.

[[Page 27259]]

TiVo states that this would allow subscribers with compatible UDCPs to 
access all linear content without the need for any equipment beyond a 
CableCARD. We seek comment on this alternative proposal, including the 
cost and feasibility of this solution for cable operators, and whether 
such a network solution would discourage investment by cable operators 
in switched digital technology.
    15. CableCARD Pricing and Billing. We propose rules requiring cable 
operators to charge equivalent and transparent prices for CableCARDs 
both for customers who purchase a navigation device at retail and those 
who lease a set-top box from their cable operator. This proposal is 
intended to ensure that subscribers are aware of the retail options 
that are available and associated costs, and to ensure that cable 
operators are allocating equipment costs fairly. We seek comment on how 
cable operators should determine charges for a CableCARD. Regardless of 
the method cable operators use to determine the lease fee, under our 
proposed rule, cable operators would be required to list the fee for 
their CableCARDs as a line item on subscribers' bills separate from 
their host devices. We believe that this would better inform customers 
about their options and enable them to compare retail options to 
leasing a set-top box from their cable operator. This proposed rule 
also will ensure that subscribers who choose to use CableCARDs in 
retail devices will be leasing their CableCARDs at a rate equivalent to 
those who use CableCARDs in leased devices. We seek comment on this 
proposal. We also seek comment on the Commission's legal authority to 
impose such a requirement.
    16. CableCARD Installations. In a similar vein, we are concerned 
that CableCARD installation costs for retail devices and installation 
costs for leased boxes may be disparate. To address this situation, we 
propose requiring cable operators to allow subscribers to install 
CableCARDs in retail devices if the cable operator allows its 
subscribers to self-install leased set-top boxes. CableCARD 
installation fees are significant, and we seek specific comment on why 
many operators require professional CableCARD installation. 
Furthermore, for professional installations, our proposed rule would 
require that technicians arrive with at least the number of CableCARDs 
requested by the customer. We seek comment on whether and how the 
Commission could enforce this rule. We believe that these simple rule 
changes will bolster CableCARD support significantly and remove 
obstacles that discourage customers from purchasing navigation devices 
at retail.
    17. Multi-stream CableCARDs. According to the National Cable and 
Telecommunications Association (``NCTA''), major cable operators have 
offered multi-stream CableCARDs since 2007, and at least one UDCP 
manufacturer offers devices that are compatible only with multi-stream 
CableCARDs. Multi-stream CableCARDs benefit consumers because they 
allow devices to tune multiple channels, thereby allowing consumers to 
record one channel while watching another, with a single card. With the 
monthly lease rate for a CableCARD exceeding $2.00 per CableCARD in 
some instances, multi-stream CableCARDs can reduce the equipment fees 
paid by subscribers by enabling them to use only one CableCARD per 
device rather than two or more. Accordingly, our proposed rule would 
require operators to offer multi-stream CableCARDs to their 
subscribers. Multi-stream CableCARDs are readily available, and we 
tentatively conclude that providing cable subscribers with the option 
to use them will save those subscribers lease fees and serve the public 
interest. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
    18. CableCARD Device Certification. Our final proposed rule with 
respect to CableCARD is intended to streamline the process of CableCARD 
device certification. Commenters have criticized the cost and 
complexity of the CableCARD certification process. In reply comments 
filed in response to NBP PN 27, SageTV described the CableCARD 
certification process as having limited the capabilities of the 
SiliconDust HDHomeRun CableCARD tuner, a device that can send cable 
content throughout the home using Ethernet:
    19. The major issue with this device is its requirement of 
CableLabs certification for anything it communicates with; which limits 
it exclusively to Microsoft's Windows Media Center PC software use. 
Removal of the CableLabs certification for allowing communication with 
this device is another short-term solution which the Commission could 
adopt in order to immediately begin to open up the market for retail 
navigation devices.
    20. We intend to clarify that CableLabs or other qualified testing 
facilities may refuse to certify digital cable ready products only 
based on a failure to comply with the procedures we adopted for 
unidirectional digital cable products. Accordingly, we propose to 
modify our rules to clarify that the certification process may require 
only such testing; conformance tests outside of our adopted procedures 
would be at the UDCP manufacturer's discretion. We believe that 
adoption of this rule will streamline the device certification process 
while allowing the cable industry to continue to control its system 
security and prevent theft of service. We seek comment on this proposed 
rule and will consider any other proposed solution to streamline the 
CableCARD certification process to facilitate the introduction of 
retail navigation devices.
    21. Interface Requirements. In recent months, the Commission has 
received three requests for waiver of the requirement that cable 
operators include IEEE 1394 interfaces on all high-definition set-top 
boxes that they deploy. Comments we received in response to those 
requests made compelling cases that IP connectivity will provide 
consumers with the functionality that the IEEE 1394 interface 
requirement was intended to provide, such as home networking. We also 
received comments that suggested that the Commission should require 
cable operators to activate the bi-directional capabilities of these 
interfaces to allow devices equipped with these interfaces to send 
basic command functions to the leased set-top box.
    22. We tentatively conclude that allowing manufacturers greater 
choice in the specific interface they include in their set-top boxes 
will serve the public interest by enabling connectivity with the 
multitude of IP devices in consumers' homes. Accordingly, we propose to 
modify our interface requirement to require cable operators to include 
any of (i) an IEEE 1394 interface, (ii) an Ethernet interface, (iii) 
Wi-Fi connectivity, or (iv) USB 3.0 on all high-definition set-top 
boxes acquired for distribution to customers. We seek comment on this 
proposal and encourage commenters to propose other interfaces that 
could further home networking goals.
    23. We also tentatively conclude that we should require cable 
operators to enable bi-directional communication over these interfaces. 
We propose that, at a minimum, these interfaces should be able to 
receive remote-control commands from a connected device. We also 
propose to require that these outputs deliver video in any industry 
standard format to ensure that video made available over these 
interfaces can be received and displayed by devices manufactured by 
unaffiliated manufacturers. We believe that these proposals will 
improve the functionality of retail consumer electronics devices

[[Page 27260]]

significantly. We seek comment on this proposed rule and tentative 
conclusions. We also seek specific comment on whether cable operators 
could implement these changes inexpensively with firmware upgrades, and 
if so, whether January 1, 2011 would be a reasonable effective date for 
such a rule change. If not, we encourage commenters to propose an 
effective date for this proposed rule change based on how complex it 
would be to execute.
    24. Promote Cable Digital Transition. The integration ban went into 
effect on July 1, 2007, and since that time the Commission's Media 
Bureau has acted on hundreds of requests for waiver of the integration 
ban rule. The Media Bureau's basis for many of those waivers was to 
provide cable operators with economic incentives to transition their 
systems to all-digital, which is a more effective use of system 
capacity. We propose to further encourage digital transitions, which 
will make it easier for operators to increase broadband speeds and 
introduce other new services. Specifically, we propose that operators 
be allowed to place into service new, one-way navigation devices 
(including devices capable of processing a high-definition signal) that 
perform both conditional access and other functions in a single 
integrated device but do not perform recording functions. Operators 
would still be required to offer CableCARDs to any subscribers that 
request them and to commonly rely on CableCARDs in any digital video 
recorder and bidirectional devices that they offer for lease or sale. 
This limited modification to our rules will allow operators to offer 
increased broadband speeds and more high definition programming without 
substantially affecting the retail market for CableCARD devices. We 
seek comment on this proposed rule, including whether this limited 
modification would affect the retail market for retail CableCARD 
devices substantially, and whether the potential effect on the retail 
market supports limiting any relief to smaller cable systems with 
activated capacity of 552 MHz or less.

IV. Conclusion

    25. The rules we propose are designed to build on and bolster the 
existing CableCARD regime to remove the disparity in the customer 
experience for those customers who choose to utilize a navigation 
device purchased at retail as opposed to leasing the cable providers' 
set-top box. We believe that these new rules will improve the CableCARD 
regime and will further the goals of Section 629 by providing potential 
consumers of retail cable navigation devices with more information 
about those options and eliminating barriers that companies face in 
developing such devices while the Commission takes action to establish 
a new solution to ensure the commercial availability of video 
navigation devices as proposed in the accompanying Notice of Inquiry.

V. Procedural Matters

    26. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to the 
Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA''), see generally 5 U.S.C. 603, is 
contained in Appendix A. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking specified infra. The Commission 
will send a copy of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document 
contains proposed new information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce 
the information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees.''
    28. Ex Parte Rules. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding will be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the 
``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under section 1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed 
in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda 
period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally 
prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of 
the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented is generally required. Additional rules 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 
1.1206(b).
    29. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    30. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
    31. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    32. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    33. Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be 
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    34. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    35. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    36. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    37. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-

[[Page 27261]]

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via 
ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft 
Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
    38. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible 
formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and 
Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable 
Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov.
    39. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, Steven.Broeckaert@fcc.gov, or 
Brendan Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-2120, or Alison Neplokh, Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of 
the Engineering Division, (202) 418-1083.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (``RFA'') the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant economic 
impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this 
Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Review 
(``Further Notice''). Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided 
above. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    41. Need for, and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The need for 
FCC regulation in this area derives from deficiencies in our rules that 
prevent consumer electronics manufacturers from developing video 
navigation devices (such as televisions and set-top boxes) that can be 
connected directly to cable systems and access cable services without 
the need for a cable-operator provided navigation device. The 
objectives of the rules we propose to adopt are to support a 
competitive market for navigation devices by increasing customer 
service and by improving audio-visual output functionality on cable 
operator leased devices.
    42. Specifically, we propose rules that would (i) require that 
equivalent prices be charged for CableCARDs for use in cable-operator-
provided set-top boxes and in retail devices, and require billing of 
the CableCARD to be more transparent; (ii) simplify the CableCARD 
installation process; (iii) require cable operators to offer their 
subscribers CableCARDs that can tune multiple streams; and (iv) 
streamline the CableCARD device certification process. The proposed 
billing rule would increase customer service by ensuring that cable 
subscribers are billed fairly for the equipment that they lease, 
regardless of whether it is a CableCARD for use in a retail device or 
for use in a device leased from the cable operator. The proposed 
installation rule would require cable technicians to arrive with the 
number of CableCARDs that a consumer requests, and allow for self-
installation of CableCARDs if the operator allows for self-installation 
of leased set-top boxes. This is intended to reduce the difficulties 
that consumers face when having CableCARDs installed in retail devices 
and to reduce the number of service calls that cable operators and 
subscribers need to schedule. The proposed rule regarding multistream 
CableCARDs would require cable operators to offer subscribers multi-
stream CableCARDs; this rule is intended to reduce the cost consumers 
face to use the picture-in-picture and ``watch one, record one'' 
functions of their video navigation devices. Finally, the proposed rule 
that would streamline the CableCARD device certification process is 
intended to reduce the cost of the certification process and limit the 
influence that testing facilities have in the development of consumer 
electronics equipment.
    43. We also seek comment on whether market-based solutions serve 
consumers adequately with respect to switched-digital video. Private 
industry negotiations have led to a market-based solution to allow 
certain types of unidirectional digital cable products (``UDCPs'') to 
access switched-digital programming through operator-provided tuning 
adapters. We seek comment on whether this market-based solution is 
sufficient, and seek comment on whether the Commission should consider 
a proposal filed by TiVo that would require cable operators to use 
broadband signaling for upstream communication to ensure that certain 
UDCPs can access switched digital cable channels.
    44. Legal Basis. The authority for the action proposed in this 
rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 303, 403, 601, 
624A, and 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 154(i) and (j), 303, 403, 521, 544a, and 549.
    45. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs the Commission to 
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental entity'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small 
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'').
    46. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 2007 North American 
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or 
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments 
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities 
that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and 
video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. 
By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they 
operate are included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic 
census category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 
2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 37 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.

[[Page 27262]]

    47. Wired Telecommunications Carriers--Cable and Other Program 
Distribution. This category includes, among others, cable operators, 
direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') services, home satellite dish 
(``HSD'') services, satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'') 
systems, and open video systems (``OVS''). The data we have available 
as a basis for estimating the number of such entities were gathered 
under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled 
Cable and Other Program Distribution. The former Cable and Other 
Program Distribution category is now included in the category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, the majority of which, as discussed above, 
can be considered small. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, 
there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million 
or more but less than $25 million. Thus, we believe that a substantial 
number of entities included in the former Cable and Other Program 
Distribution category may have been categorized as small entities under 
the now superseded SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other 
Program Distribution. With respect to OVS, the Commission has approved 
approximately 120 OVS certifications with some OVS operators now 
providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the 
only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises, 
even though OVS is one of four statutorily-recognized options for local 
exchange carriers (LECs) to offer video programming services. As of 
June 2006, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, 
representing 1.46 percent of all MVPD households. Among BSPs, however, 
those operating under the OVS framework are in the minority. The 
Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities 
authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We 
thus believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as 
small entities.
    48. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for 
the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 
nationwide. As of 2006, 7,916 cable operators qualify as small cable 
companies under this standard. In addition, under the Commission's 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers. Industry data indicate that 6,139 systems have under 
10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 
subscribers. Thus, under this standard, most cable systems are small.
    49. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There are approximately 65.3 million 
cable subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 654,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the number of cable 
operators serving 654,000 subscribers or less totals approximately 
7,916. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it 
seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are 
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators 
under the definition in the Communications Act.
    50. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The Census Bureau 
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities 
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis * * * . 
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or 
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is 
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for firms within this 
category, which is all firms with $15 million or less in annual 
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 270 
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 217 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 13 firms 
had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.
    51. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A 
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange 
carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such 
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA, although we 
emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    52. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs''). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission 
data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,307 
carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small 
businesses.
    53. Computer Terminal Manufacturing. ``Computer terminals are 
input/output devices that connect with a central computer for 
processing.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer 
employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 71 
establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002, 
and all of the establishments had employment of under 1,000. 
Consequently, we estimate that all of these establishments are small 
entities.
    54. Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing. Examples of 
peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse devices, 
monitors, and scanners. The SBA has developed a small business size

[[Page 27263]]

standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 
1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 
860 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 
2002. Of these, 851 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 
five establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we 
estimate that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
    55. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. These establishments 
manufacture ``electronic audio and video equipment for home 
entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument 
amplifications.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 750 or fewer 
employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 571 
establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. 
Of these, 560 had employment of under 500, and ten establishments had 
employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority 
of these establishments are small entities.
    56. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements. The rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking will impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, and 
compliance requirements on cable operators. The Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking proposes a rule that would require cable operators 
to charge equivalent and transparent prices for CableCARDs. This rule 
change may require certain cable operators to change their billing 
practices.
    57. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to 
describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    58. As indicated above, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt or revise rules 
relating to compatibility between digital cable television systems and 
consumer electronics equipment. The proposed billing rule and the 
proposed multistream CableCARD requirement will present a burden on 
small entities. The countervailing public interest benefits will 
outweigh those burdens, however, as subscribers to small cable systems 
will see reduced costs and have a better understanding of the specific 
equipment for which their cable operators are charging them. We do not 
expect that the proposed rule regarding CableCARD device certification 
or CableCARD installation will have anything beyond a de minimis effect 
on small entities.
    59. Due to the overwhelming consumer benefits that will derive from 
the proposed modifications to the Commission's rules, the Commission 
did not consider alternatives to those proposed rules. As described 
above, the proposed rule changes should reduce the number of service 
calls that consumers will need to schedule, reduce the costs associated 
with using a video navigation device purchased at retail, and encourage 
more competition in the retail video navigation device market.
    60. With respect to the questions regarding whether marketplace 
solutions are providing adequate access to channels that are offered 
over switched-digital video, the Commission chose to seek comment on a 
proposal by TiVo, rather than proposing adoption of that proposal as 
recommended by the National Broadband Plan. Our decision to allow such 
comment will allow the Commission to consider the effect the proposal 
could have on small entities.
    61. We welcome comments that suggest modifications of any proposal 
if based on evidence of potential differential impact on smaller 
entities. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies 
to seek comment on possible small entity-related alternatives, as noted 
above. We therefore seek comment on alternatives to the proposed rules 
that would assist small entities while ensuring improved customer 
support by cable operators for digital cable products purchased at 
retail.
    62. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Commission's Proposals. None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Computer technology, Labeling, Radio, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Telephone, 
Wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

47 CFR Part 76

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal 
employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Parts 15 and 76 as 
follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
    2. Amend Sec.  15.123 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  15.123  Labeling of digital cable ready products.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The manufacturer or importer shall have a sample of its first 
model of a unidirectional digital cable product tested to show 
compliance with the procedures set forth in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: 
Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma 
(incorporated by reference, see 15.38) at a qualified test facility. 
The manufacturer or importer shall have any modifications to the 
product to correct failures of the procedures in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-
030903: Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS 
Proforma (incorporated by reference, see 15.38) retested at a qualified 
test facility. A qualified test facility may only require compliance 
with the procedures set forth in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: Uni-
Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma 
(incorporated by reference, see 15.38). Compliance testing beyond those 
procedures shall be at the discretion of the manufacturer or importer.
* * * * *

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

    3. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 
522,

[[Page 27264]]

531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 
554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.

    4. Amend Sec.  76.640 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.640  Support for unidirectional digital cable products on 
digital cable systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Include both:
    (A) A DVI or HDMI interface and
    (B) An IEEE 1394, Ethernet, or USB 3.0 interface, or WiFi 
connectivity on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable 
operator for distribution to customers. Effective [Date to be 
determined in the final rule], this interface must, at a minimum:
    (1) Allow another device to transmit remote control commands via 
the same interface and
    (2) Deliver video in an industry standard format.
* * * * *
    5. Amend Sec.  76.1204 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.1204  Availability of equipment performing conditional access 
or security functions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply
    (i) With respect to unidirectional set-top boxes without recording 
functionality; or
    (ii) To a multichannel video programming distributor that supports 
the active use by subscribers of navigation devices that:
    (A) Operate throughout the continental United States, and
    (B) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout 
the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of 
the multichannel video programming system.
* * * * *
    6. Revise Sec.  76.1205 to read as follows:


Sec.  76.1205  CableCARD support.

    (a) Technical information concerning interface parameters that are 
needed to permit navigation devices to operate with multichannel video 
programming systems shall be provided by the system operator upon 
request in a timely manner.
    (b) A multichannel video programming provider that is subject to 
the requirements of Sec.  76.1204(a)(1) must:
    (1) Include the charge for the CableCARD as a separate line item in 
the subscriber's bill;
    (2) Provide the means to allow subscribers to self-install the 
CableCARD if the MVPD allows its subscribers to self-install operator-
leased set-top boxes;
    (3) Provide a multi-stream CableCARD to any subscriber who requests 
one; and
    (4) With respect to professional installations, ensure that the 
technician arrives with no fewer than the number of CableCARDS 
requested by the customer.

[FR Doc. 2010-11387 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P