Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 8452-8457 [2014-03100]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8452-8457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03100]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 14-16; FCC 14-8]


Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for 
the Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on 
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video 
programming. This document solicits data, information, and comment on 
the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming for the Commission's Sixteenth Report (16th Report). The 
16th Report will provide updated information and metrics regarding the 
video marketplace in 2013. Comments and data submitted in response to 
this document in conjunction with publicly available information and 
filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings will be used for 
the report to Congress.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments, on or before March 21, 
2014 and reply comments on or before April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Bring, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2164, or email at danny.bring@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for 
Delivery of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry (NOI), in MB Docket 
No. 14-16, FCC 14-8, released January 31, 2014. The complete text of 
the document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20054. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web 
site https://www.bcpi.com or call 1-800-378-3160.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

Introduction

    1. This Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits data, information, and 
comment on the state of competition in the delivery of video 
programming for the Commission's Sixteenth Report (16th Report). We 
seek to update the information and metrics provided in the Fifteenth 
Report (15th Report) and report on the state of competition in the 
video marketplace in 2013. Using the information collected pursuant to 
this NOI, we seek to enhance our analysis of competitive conditions, 
better understand the implications for the American consumer, and 
provide a solid foundation for Commission policy making with respect to 
the delivery of video programming to consumers.
    2. Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) amended the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act) and directed the 
Commission to establish regulations for the purpose of increasing 
competition and diversity in multichannel video programming 
distribution, increasing the availability of satellite delivered 
programming, and spurring the development of communications 
technologies. To measure progress toward these goals, Congress required 
the Commission to report annually on the status of competition in the 
market for the delivery of video programming.
    3. In 1992, when Congress first required the Commission to report 
on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming, most consumers had the limited choice of receiving over-
the-air broadcast television stations or subscribing to the video 
service their local cable company offered. From the consumer 
perspective, head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming 
distribution (MVPD) began with the introduction of direct broadcast 
satellite (DBS) video services. An additional competitive alternative 
for MVPD service became available to consumers when telephone companies 
began offering video services in some areas cable operators already 
served. More recently, most consumers have additional alternatives for 
delivered video programming from online video distributors' (OVDs) 
offerings of video content over the Internet.

Scope of the Report

    4. In the 16th Report, we plan to continue using the analytical 
framework first adopted in the 14th Report. Under this framework, we 
categorize entities that deliver video programming in one of three 
groups--MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. Our placement of 
entities into groups is an organizational tool to facilitate the 
presentation of information. This approach is useful for several 
reasons. First, the three categories reflect the historical evolution 
of video programming as initially delivered by over-the-air broadcast 
television stations, then also through MVPDs, and, more recently, via 
the Internet by OVDs. Second, to some degree the groupings reflect 
market participants' self-identification. Entities within each group 
tend to identify other entities in the same group as their foremost 
competitors in marketing materials and when describing their businesses 
to shareholders. Third, the business

[[Page 8453]]

models of entities within a group share more similarities than the 
business models of entities across groups. Finally, this organization 
parallels available data sources; some focus on one group (e.g., BIA 
Kelsey, which focuses on broadcast) and others separately organize data 
in the same manner we propose (e.g., SNL Kagan).
    5. We recognize that the three categories are interrelated. For the 
16th Report, we seek data, information, and comment on the 
interrelationships and competitive interactions among the three groups 
as well as between groups, e.g., the effect of OVDs on MVPDs.
    6. Consistent with the 14th and 15th Reports, we plan to describe 
the providers of delivered video programming in each group, summarize 
their business models and competitive strategies, and present selected 
operating and financial statistics. We also plan to examine key 
industry inputs that may impact the market for the delivery of video 
programming, including the creators and aggregators of video 
programming and their distribution strategies as well as consumer 
premises equipment. In addition, we plan to compare video programming 
competition in rural and urban areas for each of the three groups and 
examine consumer behavior.
    7. We request comment regarding the providers in each of the three 
groups, business models and competitive strategies, relevant operating 
and financial statistics, consumer behavior, urban-rural comparisons, 
and key industry inputs in the market. We request commenters to provide 
information and comments on competition using this framework, including 
the assessment of competition across the three groups.
    8. The accuracy and usefulness of the 16th Report will depend on 
the quality of the data and information we receive from commenters in 
response to this NOI. We encourage thorough and substantive submissions 
from industry participants and consumer groups, as well as state and 
local regulators with knowledge of the issues raised. When possible, we 
will augment reported information with submissions in other Commission 
proceedings and from publicly available sources.

Analytic Framework

    9. Following the analytic framework adopted initially in the 14th 
Report, we categorize entities that deliver video programming into one 
of three groups: MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. Within 
each of the three groups, we describe the group's:
     Providers, which may include the number, size, and 
footprint of the entities in the group, horizontal and vertical and/or 
concentration, regulatory and market conditions affecting entry, and 
any recent entry or exit from the group;
     Business models and competitive strategies, which may 
include the technologies entities employ to deliver programming, 
pricing plans, and product and service differences; and
     Selected Operating and Financial Statistics, which may 
include statistics related to the number of subscribers or viewers, 
revenue, and other financial indicators.

We also look upstream and downstream to examine the influence of 
industry inputs and consumer behavior on the delivery of video 
programming. We seek comment on our analytic framework, including how 
to incorporate a discussion of the interrelationships and competitive 
interactions across the three groups.

Data

    10. We seek data that would help the Commission report on the 
status of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming. In previous notices of inquiry, we requested data as of 
June 30 of the relevant year. In the 16th Report, we plan to report on 
a calendar year-end basis instead of a mid-year basis. We request data 
as of year-end 2013 (i.e., December 31, 2013). In addition, to the 
extent commenters can provide comparable data for year-end 2012, we 
seek such information to assess changes in the market for the delivery 
of video programming over the last year.

Providers of Delivered Video Programming

    11. We seek data, information and comment that will allow us to 
describe the providers, business models and competitive strategies, and 
selected operating and financial statistics of MVPDs, broadcast 
television stations, and OVDs. To improve our description of the video 
products and services within each group, we seek quantitative and 
qualitative data and information from companies and trade associations 
in each group. In addition we request comment from the perspective of 
consumers, advertisers, content creators, content aggregators, and 
consumer premises equipment manufacturers on the extent to which the 
video services of MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs are substitutes.

Multichannel Video Programming Distributors

MVPD Providers

    12. MVPDs include all entities that make available for purchase 
multiple channels of video programming. In the 15th Report, we 
determined that most MVPD subscribers use cable, DBS, or telephone 
MVPDs for their video service. Less than one percent of MVPD 
subscribers use other types of MVPDs such as home satellite dishes 
(HSDs), open video systems (OVS), wireless cable systems, and private 
cable operators (PCOs). For each type of MVPD, we seek data on the 
number of providers, the number of homes passed, the number of 
subscribers for delivered video programming, the number of linear 
channels and amount of non-linear programming offered, and the ability 
of subscribers to watch programming on multiple devices both inside and 
outside the home.
    13. We request updated information on the number of markets where 
DBS operators provide local-into-local broadcast service. With respect 
to non-contiguous states, do DBS MVPDs offer the same video packages at 
the same prices in Alaska and Hawaii as they offer in the 48 contiguous 
states? Do subscribers need different equipment to receive DBS MVPD 
services in these two non-contiguous states?
    14. Horizontal Concentration. In the 15th Report, we provided one 
measure of horizontal concentration estimating the number of housing 
units nationwide with access to two, three, and four or more MVPDs. We 
seek comment on this measure of concentration. We invite analysis 
regarding the relationship between the number of MVPDs available to a 
consumer and competition. Does competition differ based on the type of 
MVPDs available to consumers?
    15. Vertical Integration. In the 1992 Cable Act, Congress enacted 
provisions related to common ownership between cable operators and 
video programming networks. In the 15th Report, we discussed vertical 
integration in terms of affiliations between programming networks and 
MVPDs. We request data, information, and comment on the vertical 
integration between MVPDs and video programming networks.
    16. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Entry and 
Competition. We seek comment on the impact of the Communications Act 
and Commission rules on MVPD entry and competition. Relevant 
regulations include franchising, effective competition, program access, 
program carriage, retransmission consent, must carry, exclusivity, 
ownership, public interest

[[Page 8454]]

programming, leased access, access to multiple dwelling units, inside 
wiring, and over-the-air reception devices.
    17. We request data on the number of channels MVPDs dedicate to 
must-carry; public interest, including public, educational, and 
governmental (PEG); and leased access programming.
    18. We seek comment on the impact of market conditions on MVPD 
entry and competition. Market conditions include economies of scale, 
capital requirements, first-mover advantages, access to content (e.g., 
exclusive deals), and reaction from existing competitors. We also 
request information on the exit of MVPDs and comment on the reasons why 
MVPDs leave the video marketplace.

MVPD Business Models and Competitive Strategies

    19. Business Models and Competitive Strategies. MVPDs decide the 
types of delivered video services they will offer, the programming they 
offer consumers, how they package the programming and the complementary 
product features they will offer (e.g., high definition programming 
(HD), DVRs (digital video recorders), video-on-demand (VOD), and TV 
Everywhere). MVPDs also make decisions regarding bundles, pricing, 
advertising, customer service, and vertical integration with suppliers 
of video programming. We seek descriptions of MVPD business models and 
competitive strategies in the market for the delivery of video 
programming. How do the business models and competitive strategies of 
MVPDs affect broadcast stations and OVDs? We request information on 
MVPDs' investment in and deployment of new technologies. What benefits 
do these technologies provide to consumers?

Selected MVPD Operating and Financial Statistics

    20. In the 15th Report, we provided the following MVPD operating 
and financial statistics: video packages and pricing, number of video 
subscribers and penetration rates, revenue, investment, and 
profitability. We seek data on these operating and financial 
statistics. Are these the most relevant operating and financial 
statistics for reporting the status of competition in the market for 
the delivery of video programming? We request comment on whether there 
are better statistics and, if so, we request data that would allow us 
to report such statistics.

Broadcast Television Stations

Broadcast Television Station Providers

    21. Providers of broadcast television service include both 
individual and group-owned stations that hold licenses to broadcast 
video programming to consumers. Broadcast stations package video 
programming and deliver it directly over the air to consumers who do 
not subscribe to an MVPD, as well as to MVPD subscribers who own 
television sets that are not connected to an MVPD service. We seek data 
concerning the number of households that rely on over-the-air broadcast 
television service, either exclusively or supplemented with OVD 
service. We request information regarding the demographic and 
geographic characteristics of such households. How many MVPD 
subscribers routinely view broadcast programming over-the-air on 
television sets that are not connected to their MVPD service?
    22. Horizontal Concentration. We are interested in tracking common 
ownership of broadcast stations nationally and by DMA. Does horizontal 
concentration strengthen the competitive position of group owned 
broadcast stations in the market for the delivery of video programming? 
What is the impact of group ownership on the competitive position of 
independently-owned stations? We seek information regarding the number 
of existing joint sales agreements (JSAs), local marketing agreements 
(LMAs), and shared services agreements (SSAs) and the impact of these 
arrangements on the competitiveness of and service provided by 
broadcast stations.
    23. Vertical Integration. We are interested in tracking the 
vertical integration of broadcast television stations with broadcast 
networks and cable networks. We seek information on vertical 
integration between television stations and broadcast networks or cable 
networks. Does vertical integration strengthen a broadcast station's 
ability to negotiate carriage rights with MVPDs? Are broadcast stations 
that are vertically integrated with broadcast networks stronger 
competitors in the market for the delivery of video programming?
    24. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Entry and 
Competition. Commission rules limit the number of broadcast television 
stations an entity can own in a DMA as well as limit the aggregate 
national audience reach of commonly owned broadcast television 
stations. The Commission's territorial exclusivity rule restricts the 
geographic area in which a television broadcast station may obtain 
exclusive rights to video programming. We seek comment on the impact of 
regulations on broadcast station entry and competition in the market 
for the delivery of video programming. The Middle Class Tax Relief and 
Job Creation Act of 2012 provides for voluntary participation of 
broadcast station licensees in incentive auctions. We seek comment on 
the impact of the upcoming incentive auction on competition in the 
market for the delivery of video programming.
    25. We seek comment on the impact of market conditions on broadcast 
television station entry and competition. Market conditions include 
access to capital and access to programming. With respect to access to 
capital, we seek comment on the potential impact of our recent 
Declaratory Ruling regarding foreign broadcast investment. We recognize 
that broadcast stations depend heavily on advertising and their 
revenues can be impacted by local and national economic conditions as 
well as election cycles. We seek comment on the impact of economic 
conditions and political advertising on broadcast station entry and 
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. We 
also request information and comment on entities that have exited the 
broadcast station business.

Broadcast Television Station Business Models and Competitive Strategies

    26. Business Models and Competitive Strategies. Broadcasters' 
business models and competitive strategies involve decisions regarding 
the number of stations they own, their targeted audience demographic, 
programming, network affiliation, HD and multicast programming, local 
news, advertising, and participation in JSAs, LMAs, and SSAs. 
Broadcasters also make decisions regarding their Web sites and their 
involvement in mobile TV. We seek comment on broadcast station business 
models and competitive strategies, including those related to 
retransmission consent fees and selling programming to OVDs. What 
competitive strategies are broadcast stations using to strengthen their 
competitive position in the market for the delivery of video 
programming? How do the business models and competitive strategies of 
broadcast stations affect MVPDs and OVDs?
    27. Several MVPDs itemize or have announced plans to itemize 
retransmission fees on consumers' monthly bills. We seek comment on the 
impact of itemizing retransmission fees on monthly statements. Has 
offering multiple program streams, HD, mobile TV, or Web sites led 
consumers to switch away from MVPD service to over-the-air service? Do 
broadcast stations use advertising or marketing to encourage consumers 
to switch to over-the-air video service?

[[Page 8455]]

    28. The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) is soliciting 
proposals for a third generation broadcast technology and is involved 
in an international effort to develop a future broadcasting standard. 
Further, several U.S. broadcast stations have sought waivers of 
Commission rules to test alternative broadcasting standards. We seek 
comment on the extent to which these and other new developments in 
broadcast technology impact the market for the delivery of video 
programming.

Selected Broadcast Television Station Operating and Financial 
Statistics

    29. In the 15th Report, we reported the following broadcast 
television station operating and financial statistics: audiences for 
primary video streams, multicasting streams, Web sites, and mobile TV; 
revenue from local advertising, national advertising, political 
advertising, Web site advertising, and mobile TV advertising; revenue 
from network compensation, retransmission consent fees, and ancillary 
services; cash flow and pre-tax profits; and capital expenditures. Are 
these the most relevant operating and financial statistics for 
reporting the status of competition in the market for the delivery of 
video programming? Are there better statistics? If so, we request 
information that would allow us to report such statistics.
    30. We seek data on the viewership of broadcast television stations 
from over-the-air reception, MVPD carriage, online viewing, and mobile 
TV. We also seek data on broadcast television station revenues from 
advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent fees, and 
ancillary services. Are there changes to the network/affiliate 
relationships that affect broadcast stations' revenues? We seek 
information and comment on the impact, if any, of JSAs, LMAs and SSAs 
on retransmission consent negotiations and fees. We seek data on 
relevant measures of broadcast station profitability and data on 
investment by licensees in broadcast television stations.

Online Video Distributors

OVD Providers

    31. OVDs use the Internet to deliver video content to consumers. 
Because OVDs are relatively new entities in the market for the delivery 
of video programming, data regarding this category tends to be more 
dispersed and less standardized and reliable, relative to more long-
established data for the MVPD and broadcast station categories. We seek 
comment on the most comprehensive and most reliable data sources for 
OVDs, individually and as a group. In the 15th Report, we categorized 
OVDs in terms of their affiliation with the primary business of a 
parent company. Is there a better way to categorize OVDs?
    32. Horizontal Concentration. OVDs are the newest group in the 
market for the delivery of video programming, and no widely-recognized 
measure of horizontal concentration has been established. What is the 
appropriate measure of OVD horizontal concentration? We seek relevant 
data for assessing the level of concentration.
    33. Vertical Integration. Many OVDs are vertically integrated with 
providers of key inputs to the market for the delivery of video 
programming. Other OVDs have affiliations with retailers and/or 
manufacturers. Do these relationships strengthen the competitive 
positions of OVDs?
    34. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Entry and 
Competition. We request comment on regulatory and market conditions 
that affect OVD entry and competition. What influence have the 
Commission's Open Internet rules and IP closed captioning requirements 
for video programming had on OVD entry and competition? How does the 
relative lack of regulation for OVDs affect entry and competition?
    35. What market conditions affect OVD entry and competition? For 
example, OVDs depend on unaffiliated ISPs to deliver video content to 
consumers. Does this dependence hinder entry or weaken the ability of 
OVDs to compete in the market for the delivery of video programming? 
Does the growing amount of Internet traffic associated with the 
delivery of OVD video programming affect OVD entry and competition? 
What is the impact, if any, of ISP data caps, tiered pricing, or other 
user fees on OVD entry and competition? To what extent are OVDs 
developing content delivery networks (CDNs) to ease Internet traffic 
congestion and to improve consumers' viewing experience? Do OVDs 
encounter unique issues (relative to MVPDs and broadcast stations) when 
acquiring content rights that impact OVD entry and competition? We 
request information on recent OVD entrants as well as new features of 
OVDs. Are there market conditions that have resulted in OVDs exiting 
the video marketplace?

OVD Business Models and Competitive Strategies

    36. OVDs are a relatively new group in the market for the delivery 
of video programming and their business models and competitive 
strategies are less established, relative to MVPDs and broadcast 
stations. Some OVDs rely on subscriptions or per-program fees, others 
rely on advertising, and some OVDs rely on a combination of 
subscription and advertising revenue. Some offer tens-of-thousands of 
video programs, others offer much fewer. Some OVDs have ownership 
interests in little or no video programming, while others have 
significant ownership interests in all or most of the video programming 
they make available over the Internet. Some OVDs only distribute video 
programming previously available through other delivery technologies, 
while others are creating their own content. We seek comment on whether 
differences in business models should serve as a basis for organizing 
our discussion of OVD providers. We seek information on the business 
models and competitive strategies OVDs use to compete in the market for 
the delivery of video programming. How do the business models and 
competitive strategies of OVDs affect MVPDs and broadcast stations?
    37. Do OVDs compete primarily against other OVDs or do they compete 
against MVPDs and broadcast stations as well? What incentives do OVDs 
have to attract consumers away from MVPD services and broadcast 
stations? Do OVDs encourage consumers to switch away from MVPD service 
to OVD service, or are OVDs viewed as a supplement to MVPD and 
broadcast service? What types of investments and innovations are OVDs 
making to strengthen their competitive position in the market for the 
delivery of video programming?

Selected OVD Operating and Financial Statistics

    38. In the 15th Report, we provided the following OVD operating and 
financial statistics: audiences, number of subscribers, revenue, 
profitability, and investment. Are these the appropriate statistics? 
What are the best sources of data for operating and financial 
statistics for OVDs as a group, as well as for individual OVDs? We seek 
information concerning the amount and type of video programming OVDs 
offer. We seek data on the number of consumers who view OVD 
programming, the number of programs they view, and the amount of time 
they spend viewing. We seek data on OVD revenue from subscriptions, 
advertising, and fees for video rentals and sales. We seek data on 
relevant measures of OVD profitability. Are vertically integrated OVDs 
more profitable than non-vertically integrated OVDs?

[[Page 8456]]

Rural Versus Urban Comparison

    39. Section 628(a) of the Communications Act sets as a goal 
increasing the availability of video programming to persons in rural 
and underserved areas. As in previous reports, we plan to compare 
competition in the market for the delivery of video in rural markets 
with that in urban markets. We seek data and comment on the competitive 
alternatives facing consumers in the market for the delivery of video 
programming in rural areas relative to those facing consumers in urban 
areas. Are there major differences between the video services available 
in rural areas, relative to those available in urban areas? What 
percentage of consumers in rural areas lack access to a cable MVPD? Do 
consumers in rural areas rely more on over-the-air broadcast signals 
than urban consumers? Does access to high-speed Internet service needed 
to obtain OVD services differ between rural and urban areas?
    40. We also request data and comment regarding the differences in 
the prices consumers pay for delivered video services in rural areas 
relative to urban areas. Do consumers in rural areas pay more than 
consumers in urban areas for similar MVPD video services? Are there 
significant differences in the costs paid for key industry inputs in 
rural areas, relative to the costs paid for similar inputs in urban 
areas? Do rural MVPDs pay higher programming costs and retransmission 
consent fees?

Key Industry Inputs

Video Content Creators and Aggregators

    41. Creators of video programming are major production studios and 
independent production companies. Video content aggregators are 
entities that combine video content into packages of video programming 
for distribution. We seek comment on the value of continuing to discuss 
content aggregators and/or content creators in the 16th Report. To the 
extent that this information continues to be relevant, we request 
information regarding the number and size of content creators and 
aggregators. We seek information concerning the relationships between 
content creators and aggregators and MVPDs, broadcast stations, and 
OVDs. Do content creators and aggregators use different competitive 
strategies when dealing with MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs? Is 
this a result of regulatory or market conditions? We seek information 
on trends in vertical integration among studios and networks and any 
effects this has on MVPDs, broadcast television stations, and OVDs.
    42. In recent years, some content owners have altered the timing of 
release of specific video content through the various delivery windows 
(windowing), and the prices charged for content in each window. How 
have these windows changed in recent years? What effects have these 
changes had on competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming? Do the creators of sports programming have different 
competitive strategies, relative to other video content creators? Have 
there been significant changes in the bargaining power between content 
owners and MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs?

Consumer Premises Equipment

    43. Consumer premises equipment (CPE) includes numerous devices 
that receive and display video (e.g., televisions, computers, tablets, 
and smartphones), MVPD set-top boxes, recording equipment (e.g., DVRs), 
video game consoles and streaming devices (e.g., Xbox, Roku, and DVD 
and Blu-Ray players), gateways (i.e., modems and wireless routers), and 
antennas. We seek comment on the value of including a discussion of CPE 
in the 16th Report. We seek comment on the major developments in CPE 
devices that affect competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming. To what extent is IP connectivity being incorporated into 
CPE devices?
    44. Although many CPE devices can be purchased at retail stores, a 
few CPE devices (e.g., some MVPD set-top boxes) must be leased from the 
entity offering delivered video programming. We seek information and 
comment regarding the market for retail set-top boxes. In the 15th 
Report, we discussed the development of CableCARDs, which are intended 
to reduce consumer dependence on MVPD-leased set-top boxes. We also 
noted that, on January 15, 2013, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Order 
adopting the CableCARD standard, but not the Order that required cable 
operators to separate security and base that separate security on a 
commonly used interface or technical standard. What effect, if any, has 
the D.C. Circuit's decision had on the deployment and support for 
CableCARDs?
    45. We understand that there are certain things MVPDs, 
broadcasters, and OVDs must coordinate with electronics manufacturers 
(e.g., DRM, codecs, and connectors) in order to deliver video 
programming to consumers. How do these coordinating activities impact 
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming?

Consumer Behavior

    46. We seek information regarding trends in consumer behavior and 
their impact on the products and services entities offer in the market 
for the delivery of video programming. We request data on the number or 
percentage of households that have HD televisions, Internet-connected 
televisions, and/or DVRs. We also seek data on trends that compare 
consumer viewing of linear video programming with time-shifted 
programming. To what extent are consumers dropping (cord cutting) or 
limiting (cord shaving) MVPD service in favor of OVDs or a combination 
of OVDs and over-the-air television? Do some consumers view OVD 
services separately or in conjunction with over-the-air broadcast 
television service as a potential substitute for some or all MVPD video 
services? Do consumers who do not subscribe to MVPD services share 
common characteristics? We recognize that most consumers of OVD 
services also subscribe to MVPD services. Do these consumers view OVD 
services as a supplement to MVPD services or as a substitute for some 
or all MVPD services? We seek comment on the relationship between 
consumer behavior (e.g., the practice of watching multiple episodes of 
a television show in one sitting, sometimes referred to as binge 
viewing) and the business models and competitive strategies of entities 
in the market for the delivery of video programming.
    47. Entities in the market for the delivery of video programming 
advertise using television, newspapers, mailings, and Web sites to 
reach potential consumers and provide information about services and 
prices. Do consumers have sufficient information to easily compare 
service and price offerings? What do consumers value most when choosing 
between and among MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs? What reasons do 
consumers give for switching MVPDs or switching from MVPD service to 
reliance on broadcast stations and/or OVDs?

Additional Issues

    48. With this NOI, we seek data, information and comment on a wide 
range of issues in order to report on the status of competition in the 
market for the delivery of video programming. To make the 16th Report 
as useful as possible, are there other issues, additional information, 
or data we should include in the report on competition in the market 
for the delivery of video programming? In the interest of streamlining 
the report, we

[[Page 8457]]

request comment on issues, information, and data that could be modified 
or eliminated without impairing the value of the report for evaluating 
the status state of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming.

Procedural Matters

    49. Authority. This NOI is issued pursuant to authority contained 
in sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 54(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).
    50. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure 
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.204(b)(1).
    51. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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 the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All 
filings concerning matters referenced in this Public Notice should 
refer to MB Docket No. 12-203.
    52. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    53. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy 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.
    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.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an emailto 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    54. For further information about this Notice of Inquiry, please 
contact Dan Bring at (202) 418-2164, danny.bring@fcc.gov, or Marcia 
Glauberman at (202) 418-7046, marcia.glauberman@fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03100 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P