Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services, 2078-2091 [2014-30777]
Download as PDF
2078
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
15–2, adopted January 7, 2015, and
released January 7, 2015. The full text
of this document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554. This document 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.) This document may
be purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 1–800–478–3160 or via email
www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an email 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 does
not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding. Members of the public
should note that from the time a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making is issued until
the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, all ex parte contacts (other than
ex parte presentations exempt under 47
CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing
restricted proceedings.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336,
and 339.
§ 73.622
[Amended]
2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments
under Michigan is amended by adding
channel 25 and removing channel 51 at
Lansing.
■
[FR Doc. 2015–00616 Filed 1–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 14–261; FCC 14–210]
Promoting Innovation and Competition
in the Provision of Multichannel Video
Programming Distribution Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission propose new rules
designed to better reflect the fact that
video services are being provided
increasingly over the Internet.
Specifically, we propose to modernize
our interpretation of the term
‘‘multichannel video programming
distributor’’ (‘‘MVPD’’) by including
within its scope services that make
available for purchase, by subscribers or
customers, multiple linear streams of
video programming, regardless of the
technology used to distribute the
programming. Such an approach will
ensure both that incumbent providers
will continue to be subject to the procompetitive, consumer-focused
regulations that apply to MVPDs as they
transition their services to the Internet
and that nascent, Internet-based video
programming services will have access
to the tools they need to compete with
established providers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
February 17, 2015, and reply comments
are due on or before March 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 14–261, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–1573
or Mary Margaret Jackson,
MaryMargaret.Jackson@fcc.gov of the
Media Bureau, (202) 418–1083.
For additional information concerning
the information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an
email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy
Williams on (202) 418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14–210,
adopted on December 17, 2014 and
released on December 19, 2014. 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. This document 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 these
documents in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
Executive Summary
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’), we propose to update our
rules to better reflect the fact that video
services are being provided increasingly
over the Internet. Specifically, we
propose to modernize our interpretation
of the term MVPD by including within
its scope services that make available for
purchase, by subscribers or customers,
multiple linear streams of video
programming, regardless of the
technology used to distribute the
programming. Such an approach will
ensure both that incumbent providers
will continue to be subject to the procompetitive, consumer-focused
regulations that apply to MVPDs as they
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
transition their services to the Internet
and that nascent, Internet-based video
programming services will have access
to the tools they need to compete with
established providers. For readability
throughout the NPRM, we use the term
‘‘Internet-delivered’’ to refer to any
service delivered using IP whether or
not it uses the public Internet, except for
cable service.
Here the Commission faces, as it has
before, the impact of technology
transition. Incumbent cable systems
have made plain their intent to use a
new transmission standard that will
permit cable systems to deliver video
via IP, and other innovative companies
are also experimenting with new
business models based on Internet
distribution. That is not surprising:
Over-the-air television has moved from
analog transmission to digital. The
telephone networks of the 20th Century
have become broadband networks,
providing a critical pathway to the
Internet. And, in our January
Technology Transitions Order, the
Commission encouraged experiments
that assess the impact on consumers of
the coming transition from traditional
copper facilities to new
telecommunications networks
composed of fiber, copper, coaxial
cable, and/or wireless connections.
The Commission has recognized that
innovation must be encouraged, but not
at the expense of technology-neutral
public policies. That is why the January
Technology Transitions Order
emphasized the importance of
preserving competition, consumer
protection, and public safety. And that
is why the NPRM proposes to ensure
that the rights and responsibilities of an
MVPD are not jeopardized by changes in
technology. This IP transition will
enable cable operators to untether their
video offerings from their current
infrastructure, and could encourage
them to migrate their traditional
services to Internet delivery. With these
changes on the horizon, it becomes
important to interpret the statutory
definition of MVPD to ensure that our
rules apply sensibly and in a way that
encourages innovation regardless of
how service is delivered and that the
pro-consumer values embodied in
MVPD regulation will continue to be
served. In so doing, we take note of the
regulatory requirements that cable
operators must adhere to as they use
new technology to offer services, and we
invite comment on the regulatory
treatment of additional services that
cable operators may offer.
Adoption of a technology-neutral
MVPD definition will not only preserve
current responsibilities, it may create
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
new competitive opportunities that will
benefit consumers. Increasingly,
companies—incumbents and new
entrants alike—are interested in using
the Internet as the transmission path for
packages of video channels. In initiating
this proceeding, our goal is to bring our
rules into synch with the realities of the
current marketplace and consumer
preference where video is no longer tied
to a certain transmission technology.
Specifying the circumstances under
which an Internet-based provider may
qualify as an MVPD, possessing the
rights as well as responsibilities that
attend that status, may incent new entry
that will increase competition in video
markets. In particular, extending
program access protections to Internetbased providers would allow them to
‘‘access[] critical programming needed
to attract and retain subscribers.’’ And
extending retransmission consent
protections and obligations to those
providers would allow them to enter the
market ‘‘for the disposition of the rights
to retransmit broadcast signals.’’
Broadcast and cable-affiliated
programming could make Internet-based
services attractive to customers, who
would access the services via
broadband. The resulting increased
demand for broadband may in turn
provide a boost to the deployment of
high-speed broadband networks.
In the NPRM, we seek comment on
possible interpretations of the term
MVPD as used in the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’) and
seek comment on how each of those
interpretations would affect the industry
and consumers. Below, we seek
comment on two possible
interpretations: We propose to interpret
the term MVPD to mean distributors of
multiple linear video programming
streams, including Internet-based
services and tentatively conclude that
this interpretation is a reasonable
interpretation of the Act, and is most
consistent with consumer expectations
and conditions in the industry. We also
seek comment on an alternative
interpretation that would require a
programming distributor to have control
over a transmission path to qualify as an
MVPD and invite comment on whether
this interpretation is consistent with the
Act and Congressional intent. We also
invite comment on how this
interpretation would apply as
companies begin to offer subscription
linear video services over the Internet.
We then seek comment on the effects
that either interpretation would have on
entities that are classified as MVPDs,
consumers, and content owners. We
seek comment on how each
interpretation would benefit and burden
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2079
entities that would be subject to our
rules. We also ask whether we should
consider exemption or waiver of certain
regulations, if allowed under the statute.
We seek comment on whether to modify
our retransmission consent ‘‘good faith’’
negotiation rules with respect to
Internet-based MVPDs to protect local
broadcasters. We seek comment on what
impact these interpretations would have
on content owners, including
broadcasters and cable-affiliated
programmers. Finally, we seek comment
on how to ensure that our interpretation
will promote competition and
broadband adoption, consistent with the
Act and Commission policy.
We also note that the fact that an
entity uses IP to deliver cable service
does not alter the classification of its
facility as a cable system and does not
alter the classification of the entity as a
cable operator. In other words, those
video programming services provided
over the operator’s facilities remain
subject to regulation as cable services.
We seek comment on the regulatory
status of purely Internet-based linear
video programming services that cable
operators and direct broadcast satellite
(‘‘DBS’’) providers may choose to offer
in addition to their traditional services.
I. Background
Section 602(13) of the Act defines an
MVPD as ‘‘[A] person such as, but not
limited to, a cable operator, a
multichannel multipoint distribution
service, a direct broadcast satellite
service, or a television receive-only
satellite program distributor, who makes
available for purchase, by subscribers or
customers, multiple channels of video
programming.’’ The Act also defines the
terms ‘‘channel’’ and ‘‘video
programming,’’ which are used in the
MVPD definition. Section 602(4) defines
‘‘channel’’ as ‘‘a portion of the
electromagnetic frequency spectrum
which is used in a cable system and
which is capable of delivering a
television channel (as television
channel is defined by the Commission
by regulation).’’ And Section 602(2) of
the Act defines ‘‘video programming’’ as
‘‘programming provided by, or generally
considered comparable to programming
provided by, a television broadcast
station.’’
On March 24, 2010, Sky Angel U.S.,
LLC (‘‘Sky Angel’’), a provider of
multiple streams of prescheduled
programming over the Internet, filed a
complaint and petition for temporary
standstill for program access relief,
which is available only to MVPDs. On
April 21, 2010, the Commission’s Media
Bureau denied the petition for
standstill, holding that Sky Angel failed
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2080
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to carry its burden of demonstrating that
it is likely to succeed in showing on the
merits that it is an MVPD entitled to
seek relief under the program access
rules. The Media Bureau determined
that the term ‘‘channel’’ as used in the
definition of MVPD appears to include
a transmission path as a necessary
element. Based on the limited record at
the time, the Bureau was unable to find
that Sky Angel provides its subscribers
with a transmission path. Sky Angel’s
complaint, a second petition for
injunctive relief, a motion for sanctions,
and discovery requests are pending. In
2012, Sky Angel filed a Petition for Writ
of Mandamus with the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,
asking the court to require the
Commission to adopt and release a final
order on the merits of its complaint, and
the court denied the Petition ‘‘without
prejudice to renewal in the event of
significant delay.’’ In March 2012, the
Media Bureau issued a Public Notice in
connection with the Sky Angel
complaint, seeking comment on the
most appropriate interpretation of the
definition of an MVPD (the ‘‘March
2012 Public Notice’’) to ensure that the
Commission has the benefit of broad
public input. In June 2014, Sky Angel
notified the Commission that it had
‘‘suspended its video and audio
distribution services’’ in January 2014
because it is unable ‘‘to acquire
programming in a fair and
nondiscriminatory way.’’
More recently, issues have arisen
regarding the status of Aereo, Inc., a
former provider of online linear video
programming, under the Copyright Act
and Communications Act. On June 25,
2014, the Supreme Court found that
Aereo violated certain copyright
holders’ exclusive right to perform their
works publicly as provided under the
Copyright Act. Aereo then filed with the
Copyright Office to pay statutory
royalties to retransmit broadcast signals
as a cable system. The Copyright Office
accepted the filing ‘‘on a provisional
basis,’’ pending ‘‘further regulatory or
judicial developments,’’ including this
Commission’s interpretation of the term
MVPD and the outcome of the case that
was pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New
York. On November 21, 2014, Aereo
filed to reorganize under Chapter 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Comments filed in response to the
March 2012 Public Notice reveal a wide
range of views. By initiating this
rulemaking proceeding, we propose an
interpretation that we based on many
comments in the record of that
proceeding. But we continue to seek
broad public input, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
discussions with stakeholders, which
will fully inform us as we seek to clarify
the scope of the definition of MVPD. We
note that the Media Bureau recently
changed the ex parte status of the March
2012 Public Notice. And today, the
Bureau issued a decision holding the
Sky Angel proceeding in abeyance
pending the outcome of this proceeding
and terminating the March 2012 Public
Notice docket. These actions will allow
parties to discuss with the Commission
the definitional and policy issues raised
herein without running afoul of the ex
parte rules.
II. Discussion
As discussed below, we tentatively
conclude that the statutory definition of
MVPD includes certain Internet-based
distributors of video programming.
Specifically, we propose to interpret the
term MVPD to mean all entities that
make available for purchase, by
subscribers or customers, multiple
streams of video programming
distributed at a prescheduled time. In
reaching this conclusion, we understand
that the market for Internet-based
distribution of video programming is
nascent and that companies continue to
experiment with business models. The
current business models include, but are
not limited to, the following types of
Internet-based video service offerings,
including combinations of these
offerings: Subscription Linear. We use
this term to refer to Internet-based
distributors that make available
continuous, linear streams of video
programming on a subscription basis.
This category includes Sky Angel’s
service as it existed before 2014 and
Aereo’s service as it existed before the
Supreme Court decision. Subscription
On-Demand. We use this term to refer
to Internet-based distributors that make
video programming available to view
on-demand on a subscription basis,
allowing subscribers to select and watch
television programs, movies, and/or
other video content whenever they
request to view the content without
having to pay an additional fee beyond
their recurring subscription fee. This
category includes Amazon Prime Instant
Video, Hulu Plus, and Netflix.
Transactional On-Demand. We use this
term to refer to Internet-based
distributors that make video
programming available to view ondemand, with consumers charged on a
per-episode, per-season, or per-movie
basis to rent the content for a specific
period of time or to download the
content for storage on a hard drive for
viewing at any time. This category
includes Amazon Instant Video,
CinemaNow (Best Buy), Google Play,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
iTunes Store (Apple), Sony
Entertainment Network, Vudu
(Walmart), and Xbox Video (Microsoft).
Ad-based Linear and On-Demand. We
use this term to refer to Internet-based
distributors that make video
programming available to view linearly
or on demand, with consumers able to
select and watch television programs,
movies, and/or other video content
whenever they request on a free, adsupported basis. This category includes
Crackle, FilmOn, Hulu, Yahoo! Screen,
and YouTube as they exist today.
Transactional Linear. We use this term
to refer to non-continuous linear
programming that is offered on a
transactional basis. This category
includes Ultimate Fighting
Championship’s UFC.TV pay-per-view
service. We invite commenters to
identify other categories and examples
of Internet-based distributors of video
programming not mentioned here.
As explained below, we seek
comment on our tentative conclusion
that entities that provide Subscription
Linear video services are MVPDs as that
term is defined in the Act because they
make multiple channels of video
programming available for purchase. We
seek comment also on whether any of
the other categories of Internet-based
distributors of video programming
identified above fall within the statutory
definition of an MVPD. Because these
other Internet-based distributors of
video programming either (1) make
programming available for free, and not
‘‘for purchase’’ as required by the
definition of an MVPD, or (2) do not
provide prescheduled programming that
is comparable to programming provided
by a television broadcast channel, we
believe they fall outside the statutory
definition. We seek comment on this
view.
Below, we begin by seeking comment
on our proposed interpretation of the
definition of the term MVPD and on
alternative interpretations. We then seek
comment on the public policy
ramifications of these alternatives and
any other alternatives commenters may
suggest. We note that an entity that uses
IP to deliver cable service does not alter
the classification of its facility as a cable
system and does not alter the
classification of the entity as a cable
operator. Finally, we seek comment on
how to treat Internet-based linear video
programming services that cable
operators and DBS providers may
choose to offer in addition to their
traditional services.
Defining MVPD. To qualify as an
MVPD under the Communications Act,
an entity must ‘‘make[] available for
purchase, by subscribers or customers,
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
multiple channels of video
programming.’’ The Commission has
previously held that video distributed
over the Internet qualifies as ‘‘video
programming.’’ Thus, the key remaining
definitional issue is how to interpret the
phrase ‘‘multiple channels of video
programming.’’ We seek comment on
this issue as set forth below.
The Act defines a ‘‘channel’’ as ‘‘a
portion of the electromagnetic frequency
spectrum which is used in a cable
system and which is capable of
delivering a television channel (as
television channel is defined by the
Commission by regulation).’’ As
discussed in the Media Bureau’s March
2012 Public Notice and in further detail
below, there are at least two possible
interpretations of the term ‘‘channel’’
within the definition of MVPD. We
tentatively conclude that the best
reading is that ‘‘channels of video
programming’’ means streams of linear
video programming (the ‘‘Linear
Programming Interpretation’’). Under
this interpretation, linear video
programming networks, such as ESPN,
The Weather Channel, and other sources
of video programming that are
commonly referred to as television or
cable ‘‘channels,’’ would be considered
‘‘channels’’ for purposes of the MVPD
definition, regardless of whether the
provider also makes available physical
transmission paths. We also seek
comment on an alternative
interpretation under which the
definition of MVPD would include only
entities that make available
transmission paths in addition to
content, and thus exclude those
Internet-based distributors of video
programming that do not own or operate
facilities for delivering content to
consumers (the ‘‘Transmission Path
Interpretation’’). We seek comment on
which interpretation is most consistent
with the text, purpose, legislative
history, and structure of the Act and
which interpretation best serves
Congressional intent. We also invite
commenters to identify any other
interpretation of MVPD that is
consistent with the statute and would
better serve Congressional intent. For
example, some commenters call for a
‘‘functional equivalency’’ standard,
whereby an entity would qualify as an
MVPD if it looks and functions like a
traditional MVPD from the perspective
of consumers; others suggest that
Internet-based distributors should be
allowed to elect whether or not to avail
themselves of MVPD status, taking on
both the benefits of such status (such as
program access) as well as the
regulatory obligations. To the extent that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
any commenters favor these or other
interpretations, they should explain
how their proposed interpretation
comports with the statute, how it would
be administered or adjudicated in
particular cases, and describe the policy
ramifications.
Proposed ‘‘Linear Programming
Interpretation’’. Under our proposed
rule, we would interpret the term
‘‘channels of video programming’’ to
mean prescheduled streams of video
programming (which we refer to in this
NPRM as ‘‘linear’’ programming),
without regard to whether the same
entity is also providing the transmission
path. We believe that this is the better
interpretation for three reasons: (i) It is
a reasonable interpretation of the Act
and most consistent with Congressional
intent, (ii) it best aligns with consumer
expectations and industry
developments, and (iii) it is consistent
with the common meaning of the word
channel. We seek comment on the
interpretation as set forth below. We
seek comment also on our proposal to
define ‘‘linear video’’ as a ‘‘stream of
video programing that is prescheduled
by the programmer.’’
We tentatively conclude that our
proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation is consistent with the
language of the statute. The statutory
definition of MVPD begins by stating
that an MVPD is a ‘‘person such as, but
not limited to, a cable operator, a
multichannel multipoint distribution
service, a direct broadcast satellite
service, or a television receive-only
satellite program distributor . . . .’’ In
the Sky Angel Standstill Denial, the
Media Bureau stated that, although the
list is preceded by the phrase ‘‘not
limited to,’’ making it clear that the list
is illustrative rather than exclusive, it is
also preceded by the phrase ‘‘such as,’’
which suggests that other covered
entities should be ‘‘similar’’ to those
listed. We tentatively conclude that the
essential element that binds the
illustrative entities listed in the
provision is that each makes multiple
streams of prescheduled video
programming available for purchase,
rather than that the entity controls the
physical distribution network.
Therefore, we believe that our
interpretation is consistent with the
illustrative list of MVPDs that the
statutory definition provides.
In addition, the Commission has
previously held that an entity need not
own or operate the facilities that it uses
to distribute video programming to
subscribers in order to qualify as an
MVPD. Rather, an MVPD may use a
third party’s distribution facilities in
order to make video programming
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2081
available to subscribers. We find,
therefore, that our proposed
interpretation is consistent with
Commission precedent. We seek
comment on this finding.
We also find the term ‘‘channel’’ used
in the context of the MVPD definition
(i.e., ‘‘multiple channels of video
programming’’) to be ambiguous.
Further, we tentatively conclude that
Congress did not intend the term
‘‘channel’’ in this context to be
interpreted in accordance with the
definition in Section 602(4) of the Act,
but rather intended the term to be given
its ordinary and common meaning. The
Act states that ‘‘the term ‘cable channel’
or ‘channel’ means a portion of the
electromagnetic frequency spectrum
which is used in a cable system and
which is capable of delivering a
television channel (as television
channel is defined by the Commission
by regulation). This definition was
adopted in the 1984 Cable Act, which
focused primarily on the regulation of
cable television. In contrast, the term
‘‘MVPD’’ was adopted by Congress eight
years later in 1992, when new
competitors to cable were emerging, and
is specifically ‘‘not limited’’ solely to
cable operators. Therefore, we
tentatively conclude that we should not
rely on the cable-specific definition of
the term ‘‘channel’’ to interpret the
definition of ‘‘MVPD,’’ which is
explicitly defined to encompass video
programming distributors that include,
but are not limited to, cable operators.
Moreover, using the cable-specific
definition of ‘‘channel’’ to interpret the
definition of ‘‘MVPD’’ does not seem
consistent with the illustrative list of
MVPDs that is included in the
definition. For example, DBS providers
are specifically included in the
definition as MVPDs, but the linear
streams of video programming that they
provide to subscribers do not align with
the definition of ‘‘channel’’ in Section
602(4) of the Act, because that
definition specifically refers to the
electromagnetic spectrum ‘‘used in a
cable system.’’ If Congress intended an
entity to have control over the
transmission path in order to be deemed
an MVPD, presumably it would have
explicitly specified that in the definition
of MVPD, as it did with the definition
of cable system. Therefore, we
tentatively conclude that, when
Congress defined an MVPD as an entity
that ‘‘makes available . . . channels of
video programming,’’ it did not intend
to limit the types of entities that meet
the definition to only those that control
the physical method of delivery (i.e., a
transmission path). As a consequence,
we believe that this is a reasonable
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2082
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
interpretation of the Act. We seek
comment on this position.
We believe that our proposed
interpretation is consistent with
Congress’s intent to define ‘‘MVPD’’ in
a broad and technology-neutral way to
ensure that it would not only cover
video providers using technologies that
existed in 1992, but rather be
sufficiently flexible to cover providers
using new technologies such as Internet
delivery. The Act imposes important
pro-consumer responsibilities on
MVPDs. As incumbent MVPDs
transition to IP delivery, we must ensure
that the definition of MVPD is read
broadly enough to ensure that
consumers do not lose the benefits those
provisions are intended to confer. For
example, we note that the goals of the
program access provision of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (‘‘1992 Cable
Act’’) are to increase competition and
diversity in the video programming
market, to increase the availability of
programming to persons in rural areas,
and to spur the development of
communications technologies. It would
frustrate those goals to exclude from
coverage new technologies and services
that develop. Consumers are watching
more online subscription video, and
incumbent operators and new entrants
alike are experimenting with or
planning to launch linear video services
over the Internet. Therefore, we
tentatively conclude that the Linear
Programming Interpretation is most
consistent with consumer expectations
and industry trends, and we believe that
Congress’s goals are best served by an
interpretation of MVPD that
accommodates changing technology. We
seek comment on our tentative
conclusion that our proposed
interpretation is most consistent with
consumer expectations and industry
trends. To the extent that commenters
disagree with our interpretation, they
should address why an interpretation of
MVPD that focuses on the physical
delivery method an entity uses to
provide video programming (i) would
serve Congress’s goals, (ii) would
promote innovation, and (iii) is
consistent with the statute.
Finally, certain commenters suggest
that the term ‘‘channel’’ can be
interpreted both in the ‘‘content’’ sense
and in the ‘‘container’’ sense: ‘‘In a
video context, the Act uses the term
both in a ‘container’ sense, to refer to a
range of frequencies used to transmit
programming, and in a ‘content’ sense to
refer to the programming itself, or the
programmer.’’ Those commenters argue
that, based on the context, the content
sense applies when interpreting the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
definition of MVPD, ‘‘since only that
reading is consistent with the Act’s procompetitive purposes.’’ We note that the
legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act
refers to ESPN as a ‘‘sports channel’’
and CNN as a ‘‘news channel’’; given
that both of these are linear
programming networks, this suggests
that Congress used the term channel, at
least in this instance, to refer to such
programming networks and not to
portions of the electromagnetic
frequency spectrum. Commenters
provide numerous examples of the use
of the term ‘‘channel’’ in both the
content sense (i.e., a linear video
programming network) and the
container sense (i.e., a range of
frequencies used to transmit
programming) in everyday usage and in
dictionaries, as well as by Congress and
the Commission. Because the term
‘‘channel’’ as used in the definition of
MVPD is ambiguous, we tentatively
conclude that it is reasonable to read the
term to have its common, everyday
meaning of a stream of prescheduled
video programming when we interpret
the definition of MVPD. As discussed
above, we believe our proposed
interpretation is most consistent with
the Act’s goals of increased video
competition and broadband
deployment. In addition, we believe that
it is most consistent with consumer
expectations because consumers are
focused on the content they receive,
rather than the specific method used to
deliver it to them. We seek comment on
this tentative conclusion.
Scope of the Linear Programming
Interpretation. We also seek comment
on whether, under the Linear
Programming Interpretation, we can and
should carve out certain types of entities
that make available multiple linear
streams of video programming from the
MVPD definition. If we interpret
‘‘multiple channels of video
programming’’ to mean multiple linear
streams of video programming, could
we, consistent with the statute, narrow
the category of entities that would
qualify as MVPDs? For example, are
there niche online subscription
programming providers or other small
entities that would not be able to remain
in business if they qualify as MVPDs? A
‘‘multichannel’’ video programming
distributor is required by definition to
make multiple channels of video
programming available. We seek
comment on how to interpret the term
‘‘multiple’’ in the definition of MVPD.
Although we believe it is important to
modernize our interpretation of MVPD
to capture entities that provide service
similar to or competitive with more
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
traditional MVPD service but through
new distribution methods, we also wish
to ensure that our rules do not impede
innovation by imposing regulations on
business models that may be better left
to develop unfettered by the rules
applicable to MVPDs. Should we
interpret the term MVPD to require that
a certain number of channels of video
programming, such as twenty, be made
available? Would twenty channels be
too low or too high? Is there justification
for a different number? What if an entity
makes multiple channels available
nationwide, but makes only one channel
available for purchase to each
subscriber? Should we interpret the
term ‘‘channels of video programming’’
to require a certain number of
programming hours per day or per week
or to exempt certain niche
programmers? Is there justification to
require eighteen hours of programming
per day, seven days per week, or some
other number? We tentatively conclude
that an entity that makes linear services
available via the Internet is an MVPD,
and our regulations apply to all of the
MVPD’s video services. Are there other
factors that we should consider? For
example, should we exempt from the
interpretation of linear programming
discrete, intermittent events that occur
at prescheduled times, such as live
individual sporting events? While these
events are prescheduled by the
programming provider, they are
presented sporadically, in contrast to
most television channels that broadcast
continuously throughout the day. If
such events are considered linear
programming, our proposed Linear
Programming Interpretation would
appear to apply to online subscription
video packages that stream multiple
sporting events, such as those offered by
Major League Baseball, Major League
Soccer, the National Basketball
Association, and the National Hockey
League. We seek comment on whether
distributors of these types of services
should be included within our
interpretation of MVPD and, if not, on
the statutory basis for excluding them
and bright-line tests that we could use
to evaluate whether such an exclusion
would apply.
We tentatively conclude that we
should interpret MVPD so that the
definition would not apply to a
distributor that makes available only
programming that it owns—for example,
sports leagues or stand-alone program
services like CBS’s new streaming
service. A potential consequence of the
Linear Programming Interpretation
would be that a programmer that
decides to sell two or more of its own
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
programming networks directly to
consumers online, either instead of or in
addition to selling them through cable
or DBS operators’ programming
packages, might subject itself to the
benefits and burdens of MVPD status.
For example, if Disney were to offer, for
purchase by subscribers, a package of
linear feeds of the Disney Channel,
Disney XD, and Disney Junior for online
streaming to customers, would that
make Disney an MVPD? Would this
unduly limit consumer options? Would
bringing such an offering into our
MVPD regulations discourage
innovation? We seek comment on our
statutory authority to adopt our
tentative conclusion.
Under the Act, an entity is an MVPD
only if it makes multiple channels of
video programming ‘‘available for
purchase.’’ We seek comment on what
it means to make video programming
available for purchase, particularly as
that term would apply if we were to
adopt our proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation. We tentatively conclude
that the term means making an offer to
consumers to exchange video service for
money. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Are there other
forms of consideration that a consumer
could use to purchase services? If a
cable or satellite company offers its
subscribers access to supplemental
online linear video services without a
separate charge, but as part of their paid
television packages, does this offering
constitute making the online services
‘‘available for purchase’’? Do any cable
or satellite companies charge
subscribers for those services indirectly?
Is there any way to trace general
subscription fees specifically to
supplemental online linear video
services? We seek comment on how our
proposed interpretation could affect
new business models that do not
conform with the traditional monthly
subscription model, and whether we
should treat those business models on a
case-by-case basis.
We also seek comment on how our
proposed interpretation would apply to
entities that are located overseas but
make linear video programming
networks available for purchase in the
United States over the Internet. An
entity could meet the definition of
MVPD under our proposed definition
even if it has no physical presence in
the United States. We tentatively
conclude that the Commission should
not assert jurisdiction over these
entities. If commenters disagree, they
should provide the authority under
which the Commission could assert
jurisdiction. If we assert jurisdiction
solely over entities with a physical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
presence in the United States, will some
Internet-based distributors of video
programming locate their operations
overseas to avoid Commission
regulation? Would the alternative
interpretation discussed below, which
would consider an entity to be an MVPD
only if it maintains control over a
transmission path, avoid this result by
requiring an MVPD to have a
jurisdictional presence in the United
States?
Alternative ‘‘Transmission Path
Interpretation’’. We seek comment also
on an alternative approach that would
interpret the term channel in this
context as requiring a transmission path.
This is the approach for which the
Media Bureau expressed tentative
support in denying Sky Angel’s
standstill request. Citing the statutory
definition of ‘‘channel’’ as ‘‘a portion of
the electromagnetic frequency spectrum
which is used in a cable system and
which is capable of delivering a
television channel,’’ the Media Bureau
expressed the tentative view that the
term ‘‘channel’’ as used in the definition
of MVPD ‘‘appear[s] to include a
transmission path as a necessary
element.’’ Under this interpretation, we
would not consider Internet-based
linear video providers to be MVPDs
unless they control at least some portion
of the physical means by which the
programming is delivered—for example,
via a physical cable that the provider
owns or via spectrum that the provider
is licensed to use. We seek comment on
the Transmission Path Interpretation.
How would we reconcile the
Transmission Path Interpretation with
previous Commission decisions that
held that an entity need not own or
operate the facilities that it uses to
distribute video programming to qualify
as an MVPD? Would an entity have to
make available multiple transmission
paths (or, using the language in the
definition of ‘‘channel,’’ multiple
‘‘portions of the electromagnetic
frequency spectrum’’) to each subscriber
or customer to qualify as an MVPD? Do
all traditional MVPDs make available
multiple ‘‘portions of the
electromagnetic frequency spectrum’’ to
each subscriber or customer, including
cable operators using switched digital
video technology or an IP-based system
in which no unique transmission path is
associated with any video programming
stream? Is there a reasonable basis to
believe that Congress intended to
regulate as MVPDs only those entities
that make available two or more
transmission paths to each subscriber or
customer, but not those that make
available only one transmission path? If
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2083
we adopt the Transmission Path
Interpretation, how can we ensure that
our regulations keep up with
technology, particularly as incumbent
MVPDs transition their services to
Internet delivery?
We also seek comment on whether
Congress intended to promote only
facilities-based competition in the video
distribution market, which might
support the Transmission Path
Interpretation. The Conference Report
accompanying the 1992 Cable Act
includes a statement that Congress
intended to promote ‘‘facilities-based’’
competition. Moreover, the Commission
has previously stated that ‘‘ ‘[f]acilitiesbased competition’ is a term used in the
legislative history of the Act to
emphasize that program competition
can only become possible if alternative
facilities to deliver programming to
subscribers are first created. The focus
in the 1992 Cable Act is on assuring that
facilities-based competition develops.’’
On the other hand, the ABC/CBS/NBC
Affiliates note that ‘‘there is but one
reference to ‘facilities-based
competition’ in the lengthy House
Report. . . . Certainly, that single
reference cannot support the
incorporation of a ‘transmission path’
requirement into a statutory definition
that does not, on its face, contain any
such restriction.’’ Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether Congress sought to
increase facilities-based competition
exclusively, or sought to encourage
competition to incumbent cable
operators more generally, regardless of
how the competitive service is
delivered.
Scope of the Transmission Path
Interpretation. As we note above,
incumbent MVPDs are obtaining rights
to distribute content online at a rapid
pace and appear prepared to launch
online linear video services that are not
tied to their facilities. We seek comment
on our regulatory authority under the
Transmission Path Interpretation in
these cases. The Transmission Path
Interpretation seems difficult to apply in
certain cases because an entity’s status
would change depending on how and
where the subscriber receives the
content. For example, consider a
subscriber who views video at her home
on a tablet over broadband
infrastructure that the video distributor
owns, and then visits a local coffee shop
and views video on that same tablet via
the Internet using broadband
infrastructure that the video distributor
does not own. In that case, the video
provider would be an MVPD at the
subscriber’s home, but not at the coffee
shop. We believe that this would lead to
regulatory uncertainty, thus providing
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2084
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
more support for the Linear
Programming Interpretation. We seek
comment on this analysis.
We invite comment on any other
interpretation the Commission should
consider in addition to the Linear
Programming Interpretation and the
Transmission Path Interpretation.
Regulatory Implications of Alternative
Interpretations. Below, we seek
comment on the policy ramifications of
the various interpretations set forth
above. To the extent possible, we
encourage commenters to quantify any
costs and benefits and submit
supporting data. In addition to the
specific effects that we ask about below,
we invite commenters to identify other
possible effects of the Linear
Programming Interpretation and the
Transmission Path Interpretation and
how those effects should influence our
interpretation.
We realize that under our proposed
Linear Programming Interpretation,
several new and planned services may
be considered MVPD services. On the
one hand, DISH, Sony, and Verizon
have each announced linear Internetbased subscription video services whose
launch is imminent. These services
reportedly will carry programming from
some of the largest content companies
in the world. On the other hand, Aereo,
FilmOn, and Sky Angel launched or
planned to launch Internet-based
subscription video services, but they
claim that regulatory uncertainty has
limited their ability to develop a
subscriber base, limited investment in
their services, and hindered their ability
to compete. In light of these contrasting
examples, we seek comment on whether
the privileges and obligations set forth
in this section tilt in favor of or against
our proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation. Would the proposal (i)
give innovative companies access to
programming that consumers want, or
(ii) unduly and unnecessarily burden
companies seeking to offer innovative
new services?
Application of MVPD-Specific
Regulatory Privileges and Obligations to
Internet-Based Distributors of Video
Programming. As discussed in further
detail below, our proposed
interpretation would ensure that
incumbent MVPDs do not evade our
regulations by migrating their services
to the Internet. It would also allow
Internet-based distributors of video
programming, including those that do
not control any facilities, to take
advantage of the privileges of MVPD
status but would also require them to
comply with the legal obligations
applicable to MVPDs. Conversely, the
Transmission Path Interpretation could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
allow many if not most Internet-based
distributors of video programming to
avoid regulation, including obligations
that promote important public interest
benefits, and would also deprive them
of certain regulatory privileges. We seek
comment on these policy ramifications
below.
General Privileges and Obligations.
An entity that meets the definition of an
MVPD is subject to both privileges and
legal obligations under the
Communications Act and the
Commission’s rules. The regulatory
privileges of MVPD status include the
right to seek relief under the program
access rules and the retransmission
consent rules. Among the regulatory
obligations of MVPDs are statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to (i)
program carriage; (ii) the competitive
availability of navigation devices
(including the integration ban); (iii)
good faith negotiation with broadcasters
for retransmission consent; (iv) Equal
Employment Opportunity (‘‘EEO’’); (v)
closed captioning; (vi) video
description; (vii) access to emergency
information; (vi) signal leakage; (vii)
inside wiring; and (viii) the loudness of
commercials.
To the extent that an Internet-based
distributor of video programming falls
within the definition of an MVPD, it
will be able to take advantage of the
privileges of MVPD status but will also
be subject to MVPD obligations, unless
the Commission waives some or all of
them if authorized to do so. We seek
comment on the overall costs and
benefits of applying these regulatory
privileges and obligations to Internetbased distributors of video
programming, including incumbent
operators who migrate to Internet
delivery. We also seek comment on
specific privileges and obligations
below. Would waiver or exemption from
certain regulations be an appropriate
approach for regulating Internet-based
distributors? If so, what regulations
should be waived or modified to exempt
Internet-based distributors, and do we
have authority to do so under the Act?
Alternatively, does the statute permit us
to allow these entities to choose
whether they wish to be classified as
MVPDs?
Would subjecting Internet-based
distributors to MVPD regulations deter
investment in new technologies and
drive some current or prospective
Internet-based distributors from the
market? On the other hand, would
subjecting Internet-based distributors to
MVPD regulations provide regulatory
certainty that could reassure consumers
and spur investment by service
providers? To what extent should we
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consider increasing consumer adoption
of non-traditional MVPDs as a factor in
regulatory treatment of entities that
provide similar services but use
different delivery mechanisms? If
Internet-based distributors compete
with traditional MVPDs, should they be
subject to the same regulatory
obligations as traditional MVPDs?
Specific Privileges. Below, we seek
comment on the specific privileges of
MVPD status and how they would apply
to Internet-based distributors of video
programming. Would applying the
privileges of MVPD status to Internetbased distributors of video programming
impose costs on third parties, such as
cable-affiliated programmers and
broadcasters? To what extent would the
public be harmed if these privileges did
not extend to Internet-based distributors
of video programming?
Program Access. As required by
Section 628 of the Act, the
Commission’s program access rules
provide certain protections to MVPDs in
their efforts to license cable-affiliated
programming. These rules: (i) Prohibit a
cable operator or its affiliated, satellitedelivered programmer from engaging in
‘‘unfair methods of competition or
unfair or deceptive acts or practices’’
that have the ‘‘purpose or effect’’ of
‘‘hinder[ing] significantly or
prevent[ing]’’ an MVPD from providing
programming to subscribers or
consumers (the ‘‘unfair act’’
prohibition); (ii) prohibit a cable
operator from unduly or improperly
influencing the decision of its affiliated,
satellite-delivered programmer to sell,
or unduly or improperly influencing the
programmer’s prices, terms, and
conditions for the sale of, satellitedelivered programming to any
unaffiliated MVPD (the ‘‘undue or
improper influence’’ rule); and (iii)
prohibit a cable-affiliated, satellitedelivered programmer from
discriminating in the prices, terms, and
conditions of sale or delivery of
satellite-delivered programming among
or between competing MVPDs (the
‘‘non-discrimination’’ rule). To the
extent that an MVPD believes that a
cable-affiliated programmer has violated
these rules, it may file a complaint with
the Commission.
If the program access rules were to
apply, would cable-affiliated
programmers be required to negotiate
with and license programming to
potentially large numbers of Internetbased distributors? How will this impact
the value of cable-affiliated
programming to traditional MVPDs,
especially as compared to non-cableaffiliated programming? To the extent
that licensing programming to a
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
particular Internet-based distributor
presents reasonable concerns about
signal security and piracy, do the
program access rules adequately address
this issue by recognizing these concerns
as a legitimate reason for a cableaffiliated programmer to withhold
programming from an MVPD? Would
extending the reach of the program
access rules have a positive effect for
consumers?
We also seek comment on whether
and how our proposed rule and
alternative interpretations would impact
competition in the video distribution
market (both at present and in the
future), specifically with respect to the
program access rules. Among other
things, the program access rules are
intended to prevent cable-affiliated
programmers from discriminating
among similarly situated MVPDs. If
Internet-based distributors of video
programming are deemed not to be
MVPDs because they do not make
available transmission paths (and
therefore are ineligible for the benefits
of the program access rules), would
there be any regulatory or other
constraint that would prevent a cableaffiliated programmer from making its
affiliated programming available for
online distribution to only certain
Internet-based distributors of video
programming, such as those owned by
its affiliated cable operator, but not to
those owned by other MVPDs? In such
a scenario, because the cable-affiliated
programmer would not be
differentiating among ‘‘MVPDs,’’ would
different treatment be permissible under
the program access rules? How would
this impact competition in the video
distribution market? Cablevision
contends that extending the program
access rules to Internet-based
distributors would give them too much
flexibility compared to existing MVPD
competitors. Is this a concern that we
should consider, and if so, why? We
note that the Commission receives few
program access complaints; should this
affect our analysis? Or does it reflect
that programmers are following our
program access rules and they are
working?
Retransmission Consent. Section
325(b) of the Act benefits MVPDs by
requiring broadcasters to negotiate in
good faith with MVPDs for
retransmission consent and prohibiting
broadcasters from negotiating exclusive
retransmission consent agreements with
any MVPD. Absent these provisions,
broadcasters could potentially refuse to
negotiate with and thereby withhold
their signals from MVPDs that wish to
carry these signals. To the extent that an
MVPD believes that a broadcaster has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
violated these provisions, it may file a
complaint with the Commission.
We seek comment on the impact that
our proposed interpretation of the
definition of MVPD and alternative
interpretations would have on the
retransmission consent process. Under
our proposal, would the retransmission
consent rules force broadcasters to
negotiate with and license their signals
to potentially large numbers of Internetbased distributors? We seek comment
also on whether and how competition in
the video distribution market (both at
present and in the future) would be
impacted if Internet-based distributors
of video programming are not
considered MVPDs and therefore are not
able to benefit from the retransmission
consent rules.
Section 325(b)(1)(A) of the Act
provides that ‘‘no cable system or other
multichannel video programming
distributor’’ shall retransmit a broadcast
signal without the broadcaster’s
consent. But an entity wishing to
retransmit a broadcast signal also must
obtain authorization to publicly perform
the copyrighted works within the
broadcast signal. If we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation and the
Copyright Office does not afford
statutory licenses to Internet-based
video providers, how would we
construe a broadcaster’s obligation to
negotiate in good faith? What effect
should the answer to that question have
on our policy analysis?
Specific Obligations. Below, we seek
comment on specific obligations
imposed on MVPDs and how those
obligations would apply to Internetbased distributors of video
programming. How costly would it be
for Internet-based distributors of video
programming to comply with these
regulations? Would the public be
harmed if these obligations did not
extend to Internet-based distributors of
video programming and such
distribution became prevalent?
The interpretation of MVPD that we
ultimately adopt in this proceeding may
subject certain Internet-based
distributors of video programming to
Commission regulation that are not
currently subject to such regulation.
What transition period should we allow
these entities to come into compliance
with each of the relevant rules?
Program Carriage. The program
carriage rules prohibit MVPDs from (i)
requiring a financial interest in a video
programming vendor’s program service
as a condition for carriage; (ii) coercing
a video programming vendor to provide,
or retaliating against a vendor for failing
to provide, exclusive rights as a
condition of carriage; or (iii)
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2085
unreasonably restraining the ability of
an unaffiliated video programming
vendor to compete fairly by
discriminating in video programming
distribution on the basis of affiliation or
nonaffiliation of vendors in the
selection, terms, or conditions for
carriage. To the extent that a
programming vendor believes that an
MVPD is not in compliance with these
rules, it may file a complaint with the
Commission.
What practical impact, if any, would
these rules have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming? As
we note above, large, established cable
operators, DBS providers, and
technology companies have announced
plans to launch Internet-based video
programming services that would be
MVPD services under the Linear
Programming Interpretation. If these
companies follow through with these
plans, absent application of the program
carriage rules there may be no
regulatory constraint preventing them
from demanding a financial interest or
exclusive rights from programmers as a
condition for carriage. Does this argue in
favor of adopting an interpretation of
MVPD that would cover providers of
these services under the program
carriage rules? Moreover, as more
Internet-based distributors invest in
their own programming, they may have
an incentive to favor their affiliated
programming over unaffiliated
programming on the basis of affiliation.
We seek comment on the effect that the
alternative interpretations will have on
negotiations with programmers and
Internet-based video programming
services. What are the costs and benefits
of applying the program carriage
obligations to Internet-based video
programming services?
Retransmission Consent. As discussed
above, Section 325(b)(1)(A) of the Act
provides that ‘‘No cable system or other
multichannel video programming
distributor shall retransmit the signal of
a broadcasting station, or any part
thereof, except—(A) with the express
authority of the originating
station. . . .’’ Thus, to the extent that
an Internet-based distributor of video
programming qualifies as an MVPD, it
must receive the consent of the
broadcaster before retransmitting the
broadcaster’s signal. Moreover, Section
325(b) of the Act imposes an obligation
on MVPDs to negotiate in good faith
with broadcasters in obtaining
retransmission consent. If a broadcaster
believes that an MVPD has violated
these provisions, it may file a complaint
with the Commission.
We seek comment above on how the
retransmission consent rules can benefit
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2086
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
MVPDs, as we propose to interpret that
term. We now seek comment on the
practical impact the obligations of
MVPDs under the retransmission
consent rules would have on Internetbased distributors of video programming
that qualify as MVPDs. What impact
will the obligation to negotiate in good
faith with broadcasters have on the
resources of Internet-based distributors
of video programming that qualify as
MVPDs? In particular, will Internetbased distributors of video programming
that operate on a nationwide basis have
to engage in negotiations with
thousands of broadcasters throughout
the nation?
Are some Internet-based distributors
of video programming likely to prefer
not to carry broadcast signals? For
example, to the extent that an Internetbased provider provides service
nationwide it may prefer not to offer
local content. In that case, would the
good faith negotiation requirements
allow these distributors to simply reject
all carriage terms offered by a
broadcaster and to refrain from making
any carriage offers of their own? Or,
would this conduct amount to a
violation of the duty to negotiate in
good faith? Would it matter whether the
distributor declined to negotiate with
any broadcast stations? How will the
answers to these questions impact the
business models of Internet-based
distributors of video programming that
qualify as MVPDs but would prefer not
to carry broadcast signals? Is it likely or
possible that Internet-based distributors
will want to carry broadcast network
programming, or to carry broadcast
stations nationwide?
How do network affiliation
agreements impact the carriage of
broadcast stations on Internet-based
MVPDs? Specifically, to what extent do
existing network affiliation agreements
limit or prohibit local network stations’
ability to grant retransmission consent
rights to Internet-based MVPDs? For
example, do any network affiliation
agreements prohibit a local networkaffiliated station from permitting the
retransmission of the entirety of its
signal over the Internet? Do they limit
the retransmission of network
programming over the Internet? Would
limiting or prohibiting these provisions
harm localism?
Other MVPD Obligations. Closed
Captioning. Section 79.1 of the
Commission’s rules (the ‘‘television
closed captioning rules’’) requires
MVPDs to provide closed captioning,
defined as the ‘‘visual display of the
audio portion of video programming
pursuant to the technical specifications
set forth in this part.’’ Internet video
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
services are not subject to these
requirements. Internet-based
distributors of video programming,
however, are subject to the
Commission’s Internet protocol (‘‘IP’’)
closed captioning requirements set forth
in § 79.4 of the Commission’s rules (the
‘‘IP closed captioning rules’’) to the
extent that they make video
programming available directly to end
users through a distribution method that
uses IP. The IP closed captioning rules
are narrower than the television closed
captioning rules, insofar as the IP
closed-captioning rules require closed
captioning of IP-delivered video
programming only if the programming is
published or exhibited on television
with captions, whereas the television
closed captioning rules require closed
captioning for all new nonexempt
English- and Spanish-language video
programming. The Commission has
explained that the ‘‘IP closed captioning
rules do not apply to traditional
managed video services that MVPDs
provide to their MVPD customers
within their service footprint, regardless
of the transmission protocol used;
rather, such services are already subject
to § 79.1 of the Commission’s rules.’’ To
the extent that some Internet-based
distributors of video programming
qualify as MVPDs, how will this impact
their obligations with respect to closed
captioning? Will they be subject to
§ 79.1 or § 79.4 of the Commission’s
rules, or will the Commission need to
develop another set of requirements
tailored to these services? Will we need
to amend our closed captioning rules if
we adopt the Linear Programming
Interpretation, and if so, how?
Video Description. As required by the
Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the
Commission’s rules require MVPD
systems that serve 50,000 or more
subscribers to provide 50 hours per
quarter of video description, which
makes video programming accessible to
people who are blind or visually
impaired, on each of the five most
popular nonbroadcast networks. In
general, MVPDs of any size must pass
through any video description provided
with programming they carry, including
broadcast channels, as long as they have
the technical capability to do so. Section
79.105 of the Commission’s rules
requires apparatus designed to receive
or play back video programming to
decode and make available the
secondary audio stream, if technically
feasible, to facilitate the transmission
and delivery of video description. We
seek comment on the costs as well as
the practical impact these obligations
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will have on an Internet-based
distributor of video programming that
qualifies as an MVPD. Are there
attributes of Internet-based distributors
of video programming that make
compliance with these requirements
more burdensome than for traditional
MVPDs? We also seek comment on our
authority to extend our video
description regulations to Internetdelivered MVPDs under the Linear
Programming Interpretation. Will we
need to amend our video description
rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so,
how?
Accessibility of Emergency
Information. Section 79.2 of the
Commission’s rules requires MVPDs to
comply with certain requirements
pertaining to the accessibility of
emergency information by persons with
disabilities. And to make emergency
information accessible to individuals
who are blind or visually impaired,
§ 79.105 of the Commission’s rules
requires apparatus designed to receive
or play back video programming to
decode and make available the
secondary audio stream, if technically
feasible. We seek comment on the costs
as well as the practical impact these
obligations will have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming that
qualify as MVPDs. Will we need to
amend our emergency information
accessibility rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so,
how?
Accessible User Interfaces, Guides,
and Menus. Section 79.108 of the
Commission’s rules requires MVPDs to
‘‘ensure that the on-screen text menus
and guides provided by navigation
devices for the display or selection of
multichannel video programming are
audibly accessible in real time upon
request by individuals who are blind or
visually impaired.’’ We seek comment
on the costs and the practical impact
these obligations will have on Internetbased distributors of video programming
that qualify as MVPDs, particularly in
light of the fact that digital apparatus
(aside from navigation devices) that are
designed to receive digital video
(including IP video) must be accessible
to and useable by individuals who are
blind or visually impaired. Will we
need to amend our user interface
accessibility rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so,
how?
Equal Employment Opportunities
(‘‘EEO’’). The Commission’s EEO rules
apply to MVPDs. In general terms, these
rules (i) require MVPDs to provide equal
opportunity in employment to all
qualified persons and prohibit MVPDs
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
from discriminating in employment
based on race, color, religion, national
origin, age, or sex; (ii) require MVPDs to
engage in certain outreach and
recruitment activities; and (iii) require
MVPDs to comply with certain reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. We
seek comment on the practical impact
these obligations will have on Internetbased distributors of video programming
that qualify as MVPDs. Do Internetbased distributors of video programming
currently meet some or all of these
requirements? Will we need to amend
our EEO rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so,
how?
Navigation Devices. Section 629 of the
Act directs the Commission to adopt
regulations to assure the commercial
availability of navigation devices used
by consumers to access services from
MVPDs. The Commission has adopted
several regulations that allow
consumers to attach non-harmful
devices to MVPD networks, require
MVPDs to offer separate conditional
access elements if they use navigation
devices to perform conditional access
functions, and prohibit MVPDs from
using integrated conditional access in
the devices that they lease or sell to
their consumers. We seek comment on
the practical impact as well as the costs
these obligations will have on Internetbased distributors of video programming
that qualify as MVPDs. To what extent
do Internet-based distributors of video
programming use navigation devices in
the provision of their video
programming service? If they do use
such devices, do they currently meet
these requirements? What devices do
they use to provide programming to
subscribers? Sky Angel, for example,
states that its service cannot be viewed
without its ‘‘proprietary set-top box,
which Sky Angel directly and remotely
controls at all times for purposes
ranging from periodic service and
software updates to service activation or
termination.’’ Do Internet-based
distributors meet the requirements for
an exemption from the integration ban?
Are there aspects of Internet-based
video services that make compliance
with these requirements more
burdensome than for traditional
MVPDs? Will we need to amend our
navigation device rules if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation, and
if so, how?
Signal Leakage. The Commission’s
rules require specified MVPDs to
comply with certain technical rules
pertaining to signal leakage, as well as
reporting and notification requirements
related thereto. We expect that in
general MVPDs that use Internet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
protocol to deliver video will not use
aeronautical frequencies and thus will
not be subject to these requirements. We
seek comment on this expectation, and
any practical impact these obligations
will have on Internet-based distributors
of video programming that qualify as
MVPDs. Will we need to amend our
signal leakage rules if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation, and
if so, how?
Inside Wiring. The Commission’s
cable inside wiring rules apply to all
MVPDs. In general terms, these rules
govern the disposition of home wiring
and home run wiring after a subscriber
terminates service. To what extent, if
any, would these obligations affect
Internet-based distributors of video
programming that qualify as MVPDs,
especially if they do not control the
‘‘last mile’’ of the transmission path
used to deliver video programming to
consumers but are affiliated with an
entity that controls the transmission
path? We expect that if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation that
these inside wiring rules would not
apply to Internet-based distributors of
video programming.
Commercial Loudness. As required by
the CALM Act, the Commission’s rules
require MVPDs to ensure that
commercials are transmitted to
consumers at an appropriate loudness
level in accordance with a specified
industry standard. Depending on the
size of the MVPD and the type of the
commercial at issue (i.e., inserted by the
MVPD or embedded in the programing
by a third-party), the Commission’s
rules may require an MVPD to install
equipment and associated software or
perform spot checks or both. Do these
requirements need to be modified to
apply to Internet-based distributors of
video programming that qualify as
MVPDs, and if so, how? If the
requirements do need to be modified,
are there ways to make the rules less
burdensome for Internet-based
distributors of video programming while
meeting our statutory mandates?
MDU Access. The Commission’s rules
prohibit cable operators, common
carriers (or their affiliates) that provide
video programming, and OVS operators
from enforcing or executing any
provision in a contract that grants to it
the exclusive right to provide any video
programming service to a Multiple
Dwelling Unit. The Commission has
sought comment on whether to extend
this prohibition to other MVPDs. To the
extent the Commission were to do so,
what impact, if any, would this
prohibition have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming that
qualify as MVPDs? Is there any way a
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2087
landlord could restrict a tenant’s ability
to access certain content over the
Internet to prevent a tenant from
accessing an Internet-based linear video
service? Will we need to amend our
MDU access rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so,
how?
Other Regulatory Issues. We also seek
comment on how other regulations
should account for Internet-based
distributors of video programming that
qualify as MVPDs. For example, should
we extend any cable or satellite-specific
regulations to MVPDs more generally? If
so, what would be our statutory basis for
doing so?
Impact on Content Owners. As
discussed in this section, our
interpretation of the definition of an
MVPD may impact content owners in
their negotiations with broadcasters,
cable networks, and MVPDs. We seek
comment on these issues below.
Broadcast Content. Section 111 of the
Copyright Act provides ‘‘cable systems’’
(as defined by the Copyright Act) a
statutory license to retransmit
copyrighted broadcast performances if
the ‘‘cable system’’ pays a statutory fee
for those performances. Some content
creators and owners contend that the
Commission, in interpreting the
definition of MVPD in the
Communications Act, should be
cognizant of the interplay between
Section 111 of the Copyright Act and
the Communications Act and even
suggest that a Commission decision
interpreting the definition of MVPD to
include Internet-based distributors
would conflict with copyright law. But
the market and legal landscape has
changed significantly since content
creators and owners made those claims.
Therefore, we ask commenters to update
the record with respect to how
expanding the definition of MVPD in
the Communications Act to include
some Internet-based distributors
interrelates with copyright law.
Cable-Affiliated Content. Through
application of the program access rules,
Internet-based distributors that qualify
as MVPDs will be entitled to nondiscriminatory access to cable-affiliated
networks. Generally speaking, a
programmer licenses content from
various content creators, aggregates the
content into a network, and then
licenses the network to MVPDs for
distribution. Discovery claims, however,
that cable-affiliated networks cannot
license all of the content displayed on
their networks for distribution on the
Internet because they frequently do not
possess the right to authorize Internet
distribution of that content. Rather,
Discovery argues that (i) content
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2088
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
creators frequently retain for themselves
the rights to Internet distribution in
order to generate a separate revenue
stream by displaying the content on
their own Web sites or by selling the
content to other video providers; and (ii)
obtaining Internet distribution rights is
simply too expensive for some
networks. What effect should the
Copyright Office’s decisions have on our
statutory and policy analysis?
To what extent do cable-affiliated
networks possess—or have the ability to
negotiate for—the right to authorize
distribution of content displayed on
their network over the Internet? If we
adopt the Linear Video Interpretation,
what impact does that have on existing
rights for content distribution? We note
that some cable-affiliated networks are
made available over the Internet to
authenticated MVPD subscribers. Does
this reflect that cable-affiliated
programmers possess the right to
authorize distribution of content
displayed on their network over the
Internet? Does the concern about lack of
rights to authorize Internet distribution
of content apply only with respect to
content not owned by the network? To
what extent do cable-affiliated networks
own the content displayed on their
networks (or are affiliated with the
content creators or otherwise possesses
all of the rights with respect to
distribution of that content)? To what
extent is the content displayed on cableaffiliated networks owned by entities
unaffiliated with the network?
Would or should the adoption of the
proposed definition of an MVPD have
any effect on a cable-affiliated network
that does not possess the right to
authorize Internet distribution of
content displayed on its network? In
other words, would or should the
network be required to obtain such
rights to comply with the program
access rules if certain Internet-based
distributors qualify as MVPDs? We seek
comment on how the resolution of this
question would impact content creators,
cable-affiliated programmers, and
MVPDs, either traditional or Internetbased. We also seek comment on our
authority to require entities to enter into
contracts for these distribution rights.
Non-Broadcast, Non-Cable-Affiliated
Content. If we were to require cableaffiliated networks to obtain Internet
distribution rights from content creators
to comply with the program access
rules, what impact, if any, would or
should this have on non-cable-affiliated
networks? For example, Ovation claims
that, if cable-affiliated networks are
required to obtain Internet distribution
rights, ‘‘marketplace pressures would
foreseeably require other networks to do
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
the same.’’ We seek comment on this
concern.
Regulatory Treatment of Cable
Operators and DBS Providers that
Provide Linear Video Services via IP. It
seems evident that merely using IP to
deliver cable service does not alter the
classification of a facility as a cable
system or of an entity as a cable
operator. That is, to the extent an
operator may provide video
programming services over its own
facilities using IP delivery within its
footprint it remains subject to regulation
as a cable operator. At the same time,
we understand that some cable
operators and DBS providers are
exploring new business models that
might be indistinguishable from other
over-the-top (‘‘OTT’’) services—that is,
linear video services that travel over the
public Internet and that cable operators
do not treat as managed video services
on any cable system. As mentioned
above, cable operators and DBS
providers are obtaining rights for online
distribution of content, and some have
launched or may soon launch Internetbased video programming services.
Below, we seek comment on the
regulatory treatment of national OTT
video services that a cable operator or
DBS provider may provide nationally–
as contrasted to the traditional services
it offers.
Cable Service Provided via IP Over the
Operator’s Facilities. The Act defines a
cable operator as, essentially, an entity
that provides cable service over a cable
system. Thus, we must interpret the
three terms—cable service, cable
system, and cable operator—together to
determine the proper regulatory
treatment of IP-based services provided
by cable operators. The Act defines
cable service as ‘‘(A) the one-way
transmission to subscribers of (i) video
programming, or (ii) other programming
service, and (B) subscriber interaction, if
any, which is required for the selection
or use of such video programming or
other programming service.’’ The
Commission and other authorities have
previously concluded that the statute’s
definition of ‘‘cable service’’ includes
linear IP video service.
Second, to the extent a cable operator
uses ‘‘a set of closed transmission
paths’’ to provide cable service, as one
providing IP video programming over its
copper wire (including coaxial cable) or
fiber optic cable does, its facility meets
Section 602(7) of the Act’s definition of
cable system: ‘‘a facility, consisting of a
set of closed transmission paths and
associated signal generation, reception,
and control equipment that is designed
to provide cable service which includes
video programming and which is
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provided to multiple subscribers within
a community, but such term does not
include (A) a facility that serves only to
retransmit the television signals of 1 or
more television broadcast stations; (B) a
facility that serves subscribers without
using any public right-of-way; (C) a
facility of a common carrier which is
subject, in whole or in part, to the
provisions of subchapter II of this
chapter, except that such facility shall
be considered a cable system (other than
for purposes of section 541(c) of this
title) to the extent such facility is used
in the transmission of video
programming directly to subscribers,
unless the extent of such use is solely
to provide interactive on-demand
services; (D) an open video system that
complies with section 573 of this title;
or (E) any facilities of any electric utility
used solely for operating its electric
utility system.’’
Finally, an entity that delivers cable
services via IP is a cable operator to the
extent it delivers those services as
managed video services over its own
facilities and within its footprint. This
is compelled by the Act’s definition of
a cable operator as a ‘‘person or group
of persons (A) who provides cable
service over a cable system and directly
or through one or more affiliates owns
a significant interest in such cable
system, or (B) who otherwise controls or
is responsible for, through any
arrangement, the management and
operation of such a cable system.’’
IP-based service provided by a cable
operator over its facilities and within its
footprint must be regulated as a cable
service not only because it is compelled
by the statutory definitions; it is also
good policy, as it ensures that cable
operators will continue to be subject to
the pro-competitive, consumer-focused
regulations that apply to cable even if
they provide their services via IP.
Congress and the Commission
advanced several pro-competitive,
consumer-focused values when they
adopted the cable-specific provisions of
the Act and the rules implementing
these important provisions. The Act and
our rules include many cable-specific
requirements, including the following:
Annual regulatory fees; Emergency Alert
System (‘‘EAS’’) requirements; the VChip; commercial limits in children’s
programs; network non-duplication;
syndicated program exclusivity; notice
to broadcasters regarding: (i) Deletion or
repositioning of a broadcast signal, (ii)
a change in designation of principal
headend, (iii) change in technical
configuration, (iv) the provision of
service to 1,000 subscribers, thereby
entitling broadcast stations to exercise
non-duplication protection or
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
syndicated exclusivity protection;
political programming and candidate
access rules; sponsorship identification;
lotteries; public inspection file; public,
educational, or governmental channels
(‘‘PEG’’); program access; leased access;
various reporting requirements; crossownership restrictions; prohibition on
buy outs; national subscriber limits
(horizontal ownership restriction);
limits on carriage of vertically integrated
programming; various franchising
requirements; rate regulation, including
a requirement to offer a basic service
tier, a prohibition on negative option
billing, an obligation to offer a tier buythrough option, and requirements
pertaining to information on subscriber
bills; regulation of services, facilities,
and equipment, including minimum
technical standards and notification to
customers of changes in rates,
programming services, or channel
positions; consumer protection and
customer service; consumer electronics
equipment compatibility, including
prohibition on scrambling or encrypting
the basic service tier; support for
unidirectional digital cable products
(Plug and Play); protection of subscriber
privacy; transmission of obscene
programming; and scrambling of cable
channels for non-subscribers.
In particular, these obligations on
cable operators are critical for
noncommercial, local, and independent
broadcasters. Sections 614 and 615 of
the Communications Act and
implementing rules adopted by the
Commission entitle commercial and
noncommercial television broadcasters
to carriage on local cable television
systems. When the Commission
proposed implementing regulations, it
noted that Congress emphasized
strongly that the public interest
demands that cable subscribers be able
to access their local commercial and
noncommercial broadcast stations. That
congressional policy directive persists
today; and the continued application of
these requirements to cable operators
that provide video programming over IP
will ensure that local broadcasters will
be carried, and that other cable-centric
regulations will apply, regardless of the
method that the cable operator uses to
deliver the cable service.
Cable Operators Offering OTT
Services. We tentatively conclude that
video programming services that a cable
operator may offer over the Internet
should not be regulated as cable
services. Some cable operators have
announced plans to offer video
programming services via the Internet. If
a cable operator delivers video
programming service over the Internet,
rather than as a managed video service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
over its own facilities, we tentatively
conclude that this entity would be (i) a
cable operator with respect to its
managed video service, and (ii) a noncable MVPD under our proposed Linear
Programming Interpretation with
respect to its OTT service. To the extent
a consumer located within a cable
operator’s footprint may access the cable
operator’s OTT service using that cable
operator’s broadband facilities for
Internet access, how should this
arrangement be classified? We
tentatively conclude that such an OTT
service, if provided to consumers
without regard to whether they
subscribe to the cable operator’s
managed video service, would be a noncable MVPD service inside and outside
of the operator’s footprint, even if it is
accessible over that cable operator’s
broadband facilities. We seek comment
on whether there is any reason that our
tentative conclusion should change if a
cable operator provides an OTT service
within its footprint only, rather than
nationally. Would our analysis change if
the OTT service were bundled with the
cable service? Finally, we seek comment
on the likely forms that new OTT
services will take, and on both the
application of the statutory definitions
discussed above to such services and
the policy implications of classifying
these services.
DBS Providers Offering OTT Services.
Some DBS providers offer linear OTT
services (and have announced plans to
expand those services) via the Internet.
To the extent that DBS providers offer
video programming services over the
Internet, we tentatively conclude that
those services should not be regulated
as DBS service, and therefore should not
be subject to the regulatory and
statutory obligations and privileges of
such services. If we adopt our proposed
Linear Programming Interpretation,
those services would be MVPD services
subject to the regulatory and statutory
obligations and privileges of such
services. We reach this tentative
conclusion because that service does not
use the providers’ satellite facilities, but
rather relies on the Internet for delivery.
We believe that this tentative
conclusion is consistent with the Act
and our rules. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
Authority. The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is issued pursuant to authority
contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 325,
403, 616, 628, 629, 634 and 713 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 325, 403, 536,
548, 549, 554, and 613.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding
initiated by the Notice of Proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2089
Rulemaking shall be treated as ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceedings in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.1
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Filing Requirements. Pursuant to
§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s
rules,2 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’’). Electronic Filers: Comments
may be filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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
1 47
CFR 1.1200–1.1216.
id. §§ 1.415, 1.419.
2 See
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2090
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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. 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. 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 and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
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. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
Availability of Documents. Comments
and reply comments will be available
for public inspection 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. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
People with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530
(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the
Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the policies
and rules addressed in this document.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
Written public comments are requested
in the IRFA. These comments must be
filed in accordance with the same filing
deadlines as comments filed in response
to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
as set forth on the first page of this
document, and have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis. This Notice of Proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Rulemaking seeks comment on a
potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to
the authority contained in sections 4(i),
4(j), 303(r), 325, 403, 616, 628, 629, 634
and 713 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 303(r), 325, 403, 536, 548, 549,
554, and 613, that the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cable television, Equal
employment opportunity, Political
candidates, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 76 as follows:
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO
AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1. 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,
531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a,
545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561,
571, 572, 573.
2. Section 76.5 is amended by revising
paragraphs (rr) and (ss) to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 76.5
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(rr) Linear Video. A stream of video
programming that is prescheduled by
the programmer.
(ss) Multichannel Video Programming
Distributor. A person such as, but not
limited to, a cable operator, a
multichannel multipoint distribution
service, a direct broadcast satellite
service, or a television receive-only
satellite program distributor, who makes
available for purchase, by subscribers or
customers, multiple channels of video
programming. As used in this
paragraph, channel means linear video
without regard to the means by which
the programming is distributed.
§ 76.64
[Amended].
3. Section 76.64 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (d).
■ 4. Section 76.71 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 76.71
Scope of application.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
shall apply to any corporation,
partnership, association, joint-stock
company, or trust engaged primarily in
the management or operation of any
cable system. Cable entities subject to
these provisions include those systems
defined in § 76.5(a), all satellite master
antenna television systems serving 50 or
more subscribers, and any multichannel
video programming distributor.
Multichannel video programming
distributors do not include any entity
which lacks control over the video
programming distributed. For purposes
of this subpart, an entity has control
over the video programming it
distributes, if it selects video
programming channels or programs and
determines how they are presented for
sale to consumers. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the regulations in this subpart
are not applicable to the owners or
originators (of programs or channels of
programming) that distribute six or
fewer channels of commonly-owned
video programming over a leased
transport facility. For purposes of this
subpart, programming services are
‘‘commonly-owned’’ if the same entity
holds a majority of the stock (or is a
general partner) of each program
service.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 76.905
[Amended].
5. Section 76.905 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (d).
■ 6. Section 76.1000 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 76.1000
Definitions.
*
*
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
*
15JAP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(e) Multichannel video programming
distributor. The term ‘‘multichannel
video programming distributor’’ means
an entity that falls under the definition
provided in § 76.5(rr) as well as buying
groups or agents of all such entities.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note to paragraph (e): A video
programming provider that provides more
than one channel of video programming on
an open video system is a multichannel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:53 Jan 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
video programming distributor for purposes
of this subpart O and § 76.1507.
*
*
§ 76.1200
*
*
*
[Amended].
7. Section 76.1200 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (b).
■ 8. Section 76.1300 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
§ 76.1300
2091
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Multichannel video programming
distributor. The term ‘‘multichannel
video programming distributor’’ means
an entity that falls under the definition
provided in § 76.5(rr) as well as buying
groups or agents of all such entities.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–30777 Filed 1–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2078-2091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30777]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 14-261; FCC 14-210]
Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of
Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission propose new rules designed to
better reflect the fact that video services are being provided
increasingly over the Internet. Specifically, we propose to modernize
our interpretation of the term ``multichannel video programming
distributor'' (``MVPD'') by including within its scope services that
make available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple
linear streams of video programming, regardless of the technology used
to distribute the programming. Such an approach will ensure both that
incumbent providers will continue to be subject to the pro-competitive,
consumer-focused regulations that apply to MVPDs as they transition
their services to the Internet and that nascent, Internet-based video
programming services will have access to the tools they need to compete
with established providers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before February 17, 2015, and reply
comments are due on or before March 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 14-261,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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 email: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-1573 or Mary Margaret Jackson,
MaryMargaret.Jackson@fcc.gov of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-1083.
For additional information concerning the information collection
requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov
or contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-210, adopted on December 17, 2014 and
released on December 19, 2014. 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. This document 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 these documents in accessible formats (computer diskettes,
large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Executive Summary
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we propose to
update our rules to better reflect the fact that video services are
being provided increasingly over the Internet. Specifically, we propose
to modernize our interpretation of the term MVPD by including within
its scope services that make available for purchase, by subscribers or
customers, multiple linear streams of video programming, regardless of
the technology used to distribute the programming. Such an approach
will ensure both that incumbent providers will continue to be subject
to the pro-competitive, consumer-focused regulations that apply to
MVPDs as they
[[Page 2079]]
transition their services to the Internet and that nascent, Internet-
based video programming services will have access to the tools they
need to compete with established providers. For readability throughout
the NPRM, we use the term ``Internet-delivered'' to refer to any
service delivered using IP whether or not it uses the public Internet,
except for cable service.
Here the Commission faces, as it has before, the impact of
technology transition. Incumbent cable systems have made plain their
intent to use a new transmission standard that will permit cable
systems to deliver video via IP, and other innovative companies are
also experimenting with new business models based on Internet
distribution. That is not surprising: Over-the-air television has moved
from analog transmission to digital. The telephone networks of the 20th
Century have become broadband networks, providing a critical pathway to
the Internet. And, in our January Technology Transitions Order, the
Commission encouraged experiments that assess the impact on consumers
of the coming transition from traditional copper facilities to new
telecommunications networks composed of fiber, copper, coaxial cable,
and/or wireless connections.
The Commission has recognized that innovation must be encouraged,
but not at the expense of technology-neutral public policies. That is
why the January Technology Transitions Order emphasized the importance
of preserving competition, consumer protection, and public safety. And
that is why the NPRM proposes to ensure that the rights and
responsibilities of an MVPD are not jeopardized by changes in
technology. This IP transition will enable cable operators to untether
their video offerings from their current infrastructure, and could
encourage them to migrate their traditional services to Internet
delivery. With these changes on the horizon, it becomes important to
interpret the statutory definition of MVPD to ensure that our rules
apply sensibly and in a way that encourages innovation regardless of
how service is delivered and that the pro-consumer values embodied in
MVPD regulation will continue to be served. In so doing, we take note
of the regulatory requirements that cable operators must adhere to as
they use new technology to offer services, and we invite comment on the
regulatory treatment of additional services that cable operators may
offer.
Adoption of a technology-neutral MVPD definition will not only
preserve current responsibilities, it may create new competitive
opportunities that will benefit consumers. Increasingly, companies--
incumbents and new entrants alike--are interested in using the Internet
as the transmission path for packages of video channels. In initiating
this proceeding, our goal is to bring our rules into synch with the
realities of the current marketplace and consumer preference where
video is no longer tied to a certain transmission technology.
Specifying the circumstances under which an Internet-based provider
may qualify as an MVPD, possessing the rights as well as
responsibilities that attend that status, may incent new entry that
will increase competition in video markets. In particular, extending
program access protections to Internet-based providers would allow them
to ``access[] critical programming needed to attract and retain
subscribers.'' And extending retransmission consent protections and
obligations to those providers would allow them to enter the market
``for the disposition of the rights to retransmit broadcast signals.''
Broadcast and cable-affiliated programming could make Internet-based
services attractive to customers, who would access the services via
broadband. The resulting increased demand for broadband may in turn
provide a boost to the deployment of high-speed broadband networks.
In the NPRM, we seek comment on possible interpretations of the
term MVPD as used in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
``Act'') and seek comment on how each of those interpretations would
affect the industry and consumers. Below, we seek comment on two
possible interpretations: We propose to interpret the term MVPD to mean
distributors of multiple linear video programming streams, including
Internet-based services and tentatively conclude that this
interpretation is a reasonable interpretation of the Act, and is most
consistent with consumer expectations and conditions in the industry.
We also seek comment on an alternative interpretation that would
require a programming distributor to have control over a transmission
path to qualify as an MVPD and invite comment on whether this
interpretation is consistent with the Act and Congressional intent. We
also invite comment on how this interpretation would apply as companies
begin to offer subscription linear video services over the Internet.
We then seek comment on the effects that either interpretation
would have on entities that are classified as MVPDs, consumers, and
content owners. We seek comment on how each interpretation would
benefit and burden entities that would be subject to our rules. We also
ask whether we should consider exemption or waiver of certain
regulations, if allowed under the statute. We seek comment on whether
to modify our retransmission consent ``good faith'' negotiation rules
with respect to Internet-based MVPDs to protect local broadcasters. We
seek comment on what impact these interpretations would have on content
owners, including broadcasters and cable-affiliated programmers.
Finally, we seek comment on how to ensure that our interpretation will
promote competition and broadband adoption, consistent with the Act and
Commission policy.
We also note that the fact that an entity uses IP to deliver cable
service does not alter the classification of its facility as a cable
system and does not alter the classification of the entity as a cable
operator. In other words, those video programming services provided
over the operator's facilities remain subject to regulation as cable
services. We seek comment on the regulatory status of purely Internet-
based linear video programming services that cable operators and direct
broadcast satellite (``DBS'') providers may choose to offer in addition
to their traditional services.
I. Background
Section 602(13) of the Act defines an MVPD as ``[A] person such as,
but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint
distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a
television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes
available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels
of video programming.'' The Act also defines the terms ``channel'' and
``video programming,'' which are used in the MVPD definition. Section
602(4) defines ``channel'' as ``a portion of the electromagnetic
frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and which is capable
of delivering a television channel (as television channel is defined by
the Commission by regulation).'' And Section 602(2) of the Act defines
``video programming'' as ``programming provided by, or generally
considered comparable to programming provided by, a television
broadcast station.''
On March 24, 2010, Sky Angel U.S., LLC (``Sky Angel''), a provider
of multiple streams of prescheduled programming over the Internet,
filed a complaint and petition for temporary standstill for program
access relief, which is available only to MVPDs. On April 21, 2010, the
Commission's Media Bureau denied the petition for standstill, holding
that Sky Angel failed
[[Page 2080]]
to carry its burden of demonstrating that it is likely to succeed in
showing on the merits that it is an MVPD entitled to seek relief under
the program access rules. The Media Bureau determined that the term
``channel'' as used in the definition of MVPD appears to include a
transmission path as a necessary element. Based on the limited record
at the time, the Bureau was unable to find that Sky Angel provides its
subscribers with a transmission path. Sky Angel's complaint, a second
petition for injunctive relief, a motion for sanctions, and discovery
requests are pending. In 2012, Sky Angel filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,
asking the court to require the Commission to adopt and release a final
order on the merits of its complaint, and the court denied the Petition
``without prejudice to renewal in the event of significant delay.'' In
March 2012, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice in connection with
the Sky Angel complaint, seeking comment on the most appropriate
interpretation of the definition of an MVPD (the ``March 2012 Public
Notice'') to ensure that the Commission has the benefit of broad public
input. In June 2014, Sky Angel notified the Commission that it had
``suspended its video and audio distribution services'' in January 2014
because it is unable ``to acquire programming in a fair and
nondiscriminatory way.''
More recently, issues have arisen regarding the status of Aereo,
Inc., a former provider of online linear video programming, under the
Copyright Act and Communications Act. On June 25, 2014, the Supreme
Court found that Aereo violated certain copyright holders' exclusive
right to perform their works publicly as provided under the Copyright
Act. Aereo then filed with the Copyright Office to pay statutory
royalties to retransmit broadcast signals as a cable system. The
Copyright Office accepted the filing ``on a provisional basis,''
pending ``further regulatory or judicial developments,'' including this
Commission's interpretation of the term MVPD and the outcome of the
case that was pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On November 21, 2014, Aereo filed to reorganize
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Comments filed in response to the March 2012 Public Notice reveal a
wide range of views. By initiating this rulemaking proceeding, we
propose an interpretation that we based on many comments in the record
of that proceeding. But we continue to seek broad public input,
including discussions with stakeholders, which will fully inform us as
we seek to clarify the scope of the definition of MVPD. We note that
the Media Bureau recently changed the ex parte status of the March 2012
Public Notice. And today, the Bureau issued a decision holding the Sky
Angel proceeding in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding and
terminating the March 2012 Public Notice docket. These actions will
allow parties to discuss with the Commission the definitional and
policy issues raised herein without running afoul of the ex parte
rules.
II. Discussion
As discussed below, we tentatively conclude that the statutory
definition of MVPD includes certain Internet-based distributors of
video programming. Specifically, we propose to interpret the term MVPD
to mean all entities that make available for purchase, by subscribers
or customers, multiple streams of video programming distributed at a
prescheduled time. In reaching this conclusion, we understand that the
market for Internet-based distribution of video programming is nascent
and that companies continue to experiment with business models. The
current business models include, but are not limited to, the following
types of Internet-based video service offerings, including combinations
of these offerings: Subscription Linear. We use this term to refer to
Internet-based distributors that make available continuous, linear
streams of video programming on a subscription basis. This category
includes Sky Angel's service as it existed before 2014 and Aereo's
service as it existed before the Supreme Court decision. Subscription
On-Demand. We use this term to refer to Internet-based distributors
that make video programming available to view on-demand on a
subscription basis, allowing subscribers to select and watch television
programs, movies, and/or other video content whenever they request to
view the content without having to pay an additional fee beyond their
recurring subscription fee. This category includes Amazon Prime Instant
Video, Hulu Plus, and Netflix. Transactional On-Demand. We use this
term to refer to Internet-based distributors that make video
programming available to view on-demand, with consumers charged on a
per-episode, per-season, or per-movie basis to rent the content for a
specific period of time or to download the content for storage on a
hard drive for viewing at any time. This category includes Amazon
Instant Video, CinemaNow (Best Buy), Google Play, iTunes Store (Apple),
Sony Entertainment Network, Vudu (Walmart), and Xbox Video (Microsoft).
Ad-based Linear and On-Demand. We use this term to refer to Internet-
based distributors that make video programming available to view
linearly or on demand, with consumers able to select and watch
television programs, movies, and/or other video content whenever they
request on a free, ad-supported basis. This category includes Crackle,
FilmOn, Hulu, Yahoo! Screen, and YouTube as they exist today.
Transactional Linear. We use this term to refer to non-continuous
linear programming that is offered on a transactional basis. This
category includes Ultimate Fighting Championship's UFC.TV pay-per-view
service. We invite commenters to identify other categories and examples
of Internet-based distributors of video programming not mentioned here.
As explained below, we seek comment on our tentative conclusion
that entities that provide Subscription Linear video services are MVPDs
as that term is defined in the Act because they make multiple channels
of video programming available for purchase. We seek comment also on
whether any of the other categories of Internet-based distributors of
video programming identified above fall within the statutory definition
of an MVPD. Because these other Internet-based distributors of video
programming either (1) make programming available for free, and not
``for purchase'' as required by the definition of an MVPD, or (2) do
not provide prescheduled programming that is comparable to programming
provided by a television broadcast channel, we believe they fall
outside the statutory definition. We seek comment on this view.
Below, we begin by seeking comment on our proposed interpretation
of the definition of the term MVPD and on alternative interpretations.
We then seek comment on the public policy ramifications of these
alternatives and any other alternatives commenters may suggest. We note
that an entity that uses IP to deliver cable service does not alter the
classification of its facility as a cable system and does not alter the
classification of the entity as a cable operator. Finally, we seek
comment on how to treat Internet-based linear video programming
services that cable operators and DBS providers may choose to offer in
addition to their traditional services.
Defining MVPD. To qualify as an MVPD under the Communications Act,
an entity must ``make[] available for purchase, by subscribers or
customers,
[[Page 2081]]
multiple channels of video programming.'' The Commission has previously
held that video distributed over the Internet qualifies as ``video
programming.'' Thus, the key remaining definitional issue is how to
interpret the phrase ``multiple channels of video programming.'' We
seek comment on this issue as set forth below.
The Act defines a ``channel'' as ``a portion of the electromagnetic
frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and which is capable
of delivering a television channel (as television channel is defined by
the Commission by regulation).'' As discussed in the Media Bureau's
March 2012 Public Notice and in further detail below, there are at
least two possible interpretations of the term ``channel'' within the
definition of MVPD. We tentatively conclude that the best reading is
that ``channels of video programming'' means streams of linear video
programming (the ``Linear Programming Interpretation''). Under this
interpretation, linear video programming networks, such as ESPN, The
Weather Channel, and other sources of video programming that are
commonly referred to as television or cable ``channels,'' would be
considered ``channels'' for purposes of the MVPD definition, regardless
of whether the provider also makes available physical transmission
paths. We also seek comment on an alternative interpretation under
which the definition of MVPD would include only entities that make
available transmission paths in addition to content, and thus exclude
those Internet-based distributors of video programming that do not own
or operate facilities for delivering content to consumers (the
``Transmission Path Interpretation''). We seek comment on which
interpretation is most consistent with the text, purpose, legislative
history, and structure of the Act and which interpretation best serves
Congressional intent. We also invite commenters to identify any other
interpretation of MVPD that is consistent with the statute and would
better serve Congressional intent. For example, some commenters call
for a ``functional equivalency'' standard, whereby an entity would
qualify as an MVPD if it looks and functions like a traditional MVPD
from the perspective of consumers; others suggest that Internet-based
distributors should be allowed to elect whether or not to avail
themselves of MVPD status, taking on both the benefits of such status
(such as program access) as well as the regulatory obligations. To the
extent that any commenters favor these or other interpretations, they
should explain how their proposed interpretation comports with the
statute, how it would be administered or adjudicated in particular
cases, and describe the policy ramifications.
Proposed ``Linear Programming Interpretation''. Under our proposed
rule, we would interpret the term ``channels of video programming'' to
mean prescheduled streams of video programming (which we refer to in
this NPRM as ``linear'' programming), without regard to whether the
same entity is also providing the transmission path. We believe that
this is the better interpretation for three reasons: (i) It is a
reasonable interpretation of the Act and most consistent with
Congressional intent, (ii) it best aligns with consumer expectations
and industry developments, and (iii) it is consistent with the common
meaning of the word channel. We seek comment on the interpretation as
set forth below. We seek comment also on our proposal to define
``linear video'' as a ``stream of video programing that is prescheduled
by the programmer.''
We tentatively conclude that our proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation is consistent with the language of the statute. The
statutory definition of MVPD begins by stating that an MVPD is a
``person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel
multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service,
or a television receive-only satellite program distributor . . . .'' In
the Sky Angel Standstill Denial, the Media Bureau stated that, although
the list is preceded by the phrase ``not limited to,'' making it clear
that the list is illustrative rather than exclusive, it is also
preceded by the phrase ``such as,'' which suggests that other covered
entities should be ``similar'' to those listed. We tentatively conclude
that the essential element that binds the illustrative entities listed
in the provision is that each makes multiple streams of prescheduled
video programming available for purchase, rather than that the entity
controls the physical distribution network. Therefore, we believe that
our interpretation is consistent with the illustrative list of MVPDs
that the statutory definition provides.
In addition, the Commission has previously held that an entity need
not own or operate the facilities that it uses to distribute video
programming to subscribers in order to qualify as an MVPD. Rather, an
MVPD may use a third party's distribution facilities in order to make
video programming available to subscribers. We find, therefore, that
our proposed interpretation is consistent with Commission precedent. We
seek comment on this finding.
We also find the term ``channel'' used in the context of the MVPD
definition (i.e., ``multiple channels of video programming'') to be
ambiguous. Further, we tentatively conclude that Congress did not
intend the term ``channel'' in this context to be interpreted in
accordance with the definition in Section 602(4) of the Act, but rather
intended the term to be given its ordinary and common meaning. The Act
states that ``the term `cable channel' or `channel' means a portion of
the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system
and which is capable of delivering a television channel (as television
channel is defined by the Commission by regulation). This definition
was adopted in the 1984 Cable Act, which focused primarily on the
regulation of cable television. In contrast, the term ``MVPD'' was
adopted by Congress eight years later in 1992, when new competitors to
cable were emerging, and is specifically ``not limited'' solely to
cable operators. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that we should not
rely on the cable-specific definition of the term ``channel'' to
interpret the definition of ``MVPD,'' which is explicitly defined to
encompass video programming distributors that include, but are not
limited to, cable operators.
Moreover, using the cable-specific definition of ``channel'' to
interpret the definition of ``MVPD'' does not seem consistent with the
illustrative list of MVPDs that is included in the definition. For
example, DBS providers are specifically included in the definition as
MVPDs, but the linear streams of video programming that they provide to
subscribers do not align with the definition of ``channel'' in Section
602(4) of the Act, because that definition specifically refers to the
electromagnetic spectrum ``used in a cable system.'' If Congress
intended an entity to have control over the transmission path in order
to be deemed an MVPD, presumably it would have explicitly specified
that in the definition of MVPD, as it did with the definition of cable
system. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that, when Congress defined
an MVPD as an entity that ``makes available . . . channels of video
programming,'' it did not intend to limit the types of entities that
meet the definition to only those that control the physical method of
delivery (i.e., a transmission path). As a consequence, we believe that
this is a reasonable
[[Page 2082]]
interpretation of the Act. We seek comment on this position.
We believe that our proposed interpretation is consistent with
Congress's intent to define ``MVPD'' in a broad and technology-neutral
way to ensure that it would not only cover video providers using
technologies that existed in 1992, but rather be sufficiently flexible
to cover providers using new technologies such as Internet delivery.
The Act imposes important pro-consumer responsibilities on MVPDs. As
incumbent MVPDs transition to IP delivery, we must ensure that the
definition of MVPD is read broadly enough to ensure that consumers do
not lose the benefits those provisions are intended to confer. For
example, we note that the goals of the program access provision of the
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
(``1992 Cable Act'') are to increase competition and diversity in the
video programming market, to increase the availability of programming
to persons in rural areas, and to spur the development of
communications technologies. It would frustrate those goals to exclude
from coverage new technologies and services that develop. Consumers are
watching more online subscription video, and incumbent operators and
new entrants alike are experimenting with or planning to launch linear
video services over the Internet. Therefore, we tentatively conclude
that the Linear Programming Interpretation is most consistent with
consumer expectations and industry trends, and we believe that
Congress's goals are best served by an interpretation of MVPD that
accommodates changing technology. We seek comment on our tentative
conclusion that our proposed interpretation is most consistent with
consumer expectations and industry trends. To the extent that
commenters disagree with our interpretation, they should address why an
interpretation of MVPD that focuses on the physical delivery method an
entity uses to provide video programming (i) would serve Congress's
goals, (ii) would promote innovation, and (iii) is consistent with the
statute.
Finally, certain commenters suggest that the term ``channel'' can
be interpreted both in the ``content'' sense and in the ``container''
sense: ``In a video context, the Act uses the term both in a
`container' sense, to refer to a range of frequencies used to transmit
programming, and in a `content' sense to refer to the programming
itself, or the programmer.'' Those commenters argue that, based on the
context, the content sense applies when interpreting the definition of
MVPD, ``since only that reading is consistent with the Act's pro-
competitive purposes.'' We note that the legislative history of the
1992 Cable Act refers to ESPN as a ``sports channel'' and CNN as a
``news channel''; given that both of these are linear programming
networks, this suggests that Congress used the term channel, at least
in this instance, to refer to such programming networks and not to
portions of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. Commenters provide
numerous examples of the use of the term ``channel'' in both the
content sense (i.e., a linear video programming network) and the
container sense (i.e., a range of frequencies used to transmit
programming) in everyday usage and in dictionaries, as well as by
Congress and the Commission. Because the term ``channel'' as used in
the definition of MVPD is ambiguous, we tentatively conclude that it is
reasonable to read the term to have its common, everyday meaning of a
stream of prescheduled video programming when we interpret the
definition of MVPD. As discussed above, we believe our proposed
interpretation is most consistent with the Act's goals of increased
video competition and broadband deployment. In addition, we believe
that it is most consistent with consumer expectations because consumers
are focused on the content they receive, rather than the specific
method used to deliver it to them. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
Scope of the Linear Programming Interpretation. We also seek
comment on whether, under the Linear Programming Interpretation, we can
and should carve out certain types of entities that make available
multiple linear streams of video programming from the MVPD definition.
If we interpret ``multiple channels of video programming'' to mean
multiple linear streams of video programming, could we, consistent with
the statute, narrow the category of entities that would qualify as
MVPDs? For example, are there niche online subscription programming
providers or other small entities that would not be able to remain in
business if they qualify as MVPDs? A ``multichannel'' video programming
distributor is required by definition to make multiple channels of
video programming available. We seek comment on how to interpret the
term ``multiple'' in the definition of MVPD. Although we believe it is
important to modernize our interpretation of MVPD to capture entities
that provide service similar to or competitive with more traditional
MVPD service but through new distribution methods, we also wish to
ensure that our rules do not impede innovation by imposing regulations
on business models that may be better left to develop unfettered by the
rules applicable to MVPDs. Should we interpret the term MVPD to require
that a certain number of channels of video programming, such as twenty,
be made available? Would twenty channels be too low or too high? Is
there justification for a different number? What if an entity makes
multiple channels available nationwide, but makes only one channel
available for purchase to each subscriber? Should we interpret the term
``channels of video programming'' to require a certain number of
programming hours per day or per week or to exempt certain niche
programmers? Is there justification to require eighteen hours of
programming per day, seven days per week, or some other number? We
tentatively conclude that an entity that makes linear services
available via the Internet is an MVPD, and our regulations apply to all
of the MVPD's video services. Are there other factors that we should
consider? For example, should we exempt from the interpretation of
linear programming discrete, intermittent events that occur at
prescheduled times, such as live individual sporting events? While
these events are prescheduled by the programming provider, they are
presented sporadically, in contrast to most television channels that
broadcast continuously throughout the day. If such events are
considered linear programming, our proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation would appear to apply to online subscription video
packages that stream multiple sporting events, such as those offered by
Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball
Association, and the National Hockey League. We seek comment on whether
distributors of these types of services should be included within our
interpretation of MVPD and, if not, on the statutory basis for
excluding them and bright-line tests that we could use to evaluate
whether such an exclusion would apply.
We tentatively conclude that we should interpret MVPD so that the
definition would not apply to a distributor that makes available only
programming that it owns--for example, sports leagues or stand-alone
program services like CBS's new streaming service. A potential
consequence of the Linear Programming Interpretation would be that a
programmer that decides to sell two or more of its own
[[Page 2083]]
programming networks directly to consumers online, either instead of or
in addition to selling them through cable or DBS operators' programming
packages, might subject itself to the benefits and burdens of MVPD
status. For example, if Disney were to offer, for purchase by
subscribers, a package of linear feeds of the Disney Channel, Disney
XD, and Disney Junior for online streaming to customers, would that
make Disney an MVPD? Would this unduly limit consumer options? Would
bringing such an offering into our MVPD regulations discourage
innovation? We seek comment on our statutory authority to adopt our
tentative conclusion.
Under the Act, an entity is an MVPD only if it makes multiple
channels of video programming ``available for purchase.'' We seek
comment on what it means to make video programming available for
purchase, particularly as that term would apply if we were to adopt our
proposed Linear Programming Interpretation. We tentatively conclude
that the term means making an offer to consumers to exchange video
service for money. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Are
there other forms of consideration that a consumer could use to
purchase services? If a cable or satellite company offers its
subscribers access to supplemental online linear video services without
a separate charge, but as part of their paid television packages, does
this offering constitute making the online services ``available for
purchase''? Do any cable or satellite companies charge subscribers for
those services indirectly? Is there any way to trace general
subscription fees specifically to supplemental online linear video
services? We seek comment on how our proposed interpretation could
affect new business models that do not conform with the traditional
monthly subscription model, and whether we should treat those business
models on a case-by-case basis.
We also seek comment on how our proposed interpretation would apply
to entities that are located overseas but make linear video programming
networks available for purchase in the United States over the Internet.
An entity could meet the definition of MVPD under our proposed
definition even if it has no physical presence in the United States. We
tentatively conclude that the Commission should not assert jurisdiction
over these entities. If commenters disagree, they should provide the
authority under which the Commission could assert jurisdiction. If we
assert jurisdiction solely over entities with a physical presence in
the United States, will some Internet-based distributors of video
programming locate their operations overseas to avoid Commission
regulation? Would the alternative interpretation discussed below, which
would consider an entity to be an MVPD only if it maintains control
over a transmission path, avoid this result by requiring an MVPD to
have a jurisdictional presence in the United States?
Alternative ``Transmission Path Interpretation''. We seek comment
also on an alternative approach that would interpret the term channel
in this context as requiring a transmission path. This is the approach
for which the Media Bureau expressed tentative support in denying Sky
Angel's standstill request. Citing the statutory definition of
``channel'' as ``a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum
which is used in a cable system and which is capable of delivering a
television channel,'' the Media Bureau expressed the tentative view
that the term ``channel'' as used in the definition of MVPD ``appear[s]
to include a transmission path as a necessary element.'' Under this
interpretation, we would not consider Internet-based linear video
providers to be MVPDs unless they control at least some portion of the
physical means by which the programming is delivered--for example, via
a physical cable that the provider owns or via spectrum that the
provider is licensed to use. We seek comment on the Transmission Path
Interpretation. How would we reconcile the Transmission Path
Interpretation with previous Commission decisions that held that an
entity need not own or operate the facilities that it uses to
distribute video programming to qualify as an MVPD? Would an entity
have to make available multiple transmission paths (or, using the
language in the definition of ``channel,'' multiple ``portions of the
electromagnetic frequency spectrum'') to each subscriber or customer to
qualify as an MVPD? Do all traditional MVPDs make available multiple
``portions of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum'' to each
subscriber or customer, including cable operators using switched
digital video technology or an IP-based system in which no unique
transmission path is associated with any video programming stream? Is
there a reasonable basis to believe that Congress intended to regulate
as MVPDs only those entities that make available two or more
transmission paths to each subscriber or customer, but not those that
make available only one transmission path? If we adopt the Transmission
Path Interpretation, how can we ensure that our regulations keep up
with technology, particularly as incumbent MVPDs transition their
services to Internet delivery?
We also seek comment on whether Congress intended to promote only
facilities-based competition in the video distribution market, which
might support the Transmission Path Interpretation. The Conference
Report accompanying the 1992 Cable Act includes a statement that
Congress intended to promote ``facilities-based'' competition.
Moreover, the Commission has previously stated that `` `[f]acilities-
based competition' is a term used in the legislative history of the Act
to emphasize that program competition can only become possible if
alternative facilities to deliver programming to subscribers are first
created. The focus in the 1992 Cable Act is on assuring that
facilities-based competition develops.'' On the other hand, the ABC/
CBS/NBC Affiliates note that ``there is but one reference to
`facilities-based competition' in the lengthy House Report. . . .
Certainly, that single reference cannot support the incorporation of a
`transmission path' requirement into a statutory definition that does
not, on its face, contain any such restriction.'' Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether Congress sought to increase facilities-based
competition exclusively, or sought to encourage competition to
incumbent cable operators more generally, regardless of how the
competitive service is delivered.
Scope of the Transmission Path Interpretation. As we note above,
incumbent MVPDs are obtaining rights to distribute content online at a
rapid pace and appear prepared to launch online linear video services
that are not tied to their facilities. We seek comment on our
regulatory authority under the Transmission Path Interpretation in
these cases. The Transmission Path Interpretation seems difficult to
apply in certain cases because an entity's status would change
depending on how and where the subscriber receives the content. For
example, consider a subscriber who views video at her home on a tablet
over broadband infrastructure that the video distributor owns, and then
visits a local coffee shop and views video on that same tablet via the
Internet using broadband infrastructure that the video distributor does
not own. In that case, the video provider would be an MVPD at the
subscriber's home, but not at the coffee shop. We believe that this
would lead to regulatory uncertainty, thus providing
[[Page 2084]]
more support for the Linear Programming Interpretation. We seek comment
on this analysis.
We invite comment on any other interpretation the Commission should
consider in addition to the Linear Programming Interpretation and the
Transmission Path Interpretation.
Regulatory Implications of Alternative Interpretations. Below, we
seek comment on the policy ramifications of the various interpretations
set forth above. To the extent possible, we encourage commenters to
quantify any costs and benefits and submit supporting data. In addition
to the specific effects that we ask about below, we invite commenters
to identify other possible effects of the Linear Programming
Interpretation and the Transmission Path Interpretation and how those
effects should influence our interpretation.
We realize that under our proposed Linear Programming
Interpretation, several new and planned services may be considered MVPD
services. On the one hand, DISH, Sony, and Verizon have each announced
linear Internet-based subscription video services whose launch is
imminent. These services reportedly will carry programming from some of
the largest content companies in the world. On the other hand, Aereo,
FilmOn, and Sky Angel launched or planned to launch Internet-based
subscription video services, but they claim that regulatory uncertainty
has limited their ability to develop a subscriber base, limited
investment in their services, and hindered their ability to compete. In
light of these contrasting examples, we seek comment on whether the
privileges and obligations set forth in this section tilt in favor of
or against our proposed Linear Programming Interpretation. Would the
proposal (i) give innovative companies access to programming that
consumers want, or (ii) unduly and unnecessarily burden companies
seeking to offer innovative new services?
Application of MVPD-Specific Regulatory Privileges and Obligations
to Internet-Based Distributors of Video Programming. As discussed in
further detail below, our proposed interpretation would ensure that
incumbent MVPDs do not evade our regulations by migrating their
services to the Internet. It would also allow Internet-based
distributors of video programming, including those that do not control
any facilities, to take advantage of the privileges of MVPD status but
would also require them to comply with the legal obligations applicable
to MVPDs. Conversely, the Transmission Path Interpretation could allow
many if not most Internet-based distributors of video programming to
avoid regulation, including obligations that promote important public
interest benefits, and would also deprive them of certain regulatory
privileges. We seek comment on these policy ramifications below.
General Privileges and Obligations. An entity that meets the
definition of an MVPD is subject to both privileges and legal
obligations under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules.
The regulatory privileges of MVPD status include the right to seek
relief under the program access rules and the retransmission consent
rules. Among the regulatory obligations of MVPDs are statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to (i) program carriage; (ii) the
competitive availability of navigation devices (including the
integration ban); (iii) good faith negotiation with broadcasters for
retransmission consent; (iv) Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'');
(v) closed captioning; (vi) video description; (vii) access to
emergency information; (vi) signal leakage; (vii) inside wiring; and
(viii) the loudness of commercials.
To the extent that an Internet-based distributor of video
programming falls within the definition of an MVPD, it will be able to
take advantage of the privileges of MVPD status but will also be
subject to MVPD obligations, unless the Commission waives some or all
of them if authorized to do so. We seek comment on the overall costs
and benefits of applying these regulatory privileges and obligations to
Internet-based distributors of video programming, including incumbent
operators who migrate to Internet delivery. We also seek comment on
specific privileges and obligations below. Would waiver or exemption
from certain regulations be an appropriate approach for regulating
Internet-based distributors? If so, what regulations should be waived
or modified to exempt Internet-based distributors, and do we have
authority to do so under the Act? Alternatively, does the statute
permit us to allow these entities to choose whether they wish to be
classified as MVPDs?
Would subjecting Internet-based distributors to MVPD regulations
deter investment in new technologies and drive some current or
prospective Internet-based distributors from the market? On the other
hand, would subjecting Internet-based distributors to MVPD regulations
provide regulatory certainty that could reassure consumers and spur
investment by service providers? To what extent should we consider
increasing consumer adoption of non-traditional MVPDs as a factor in
regulatory treatment of entities that provide similar services but use
different delivery mechanisms? If Internet-based distributors compete
with traditional MVPDs, should they be subject to the same regulatory
obligations as traditional MVPDs?
Specific Privileges. Below, we seek comment on the specific
privileges of MVPD status and how they would apply to Internet-based
distributors of video programming. Would applying the privileges of
MVPD status to Internet-based distributors of video programming impose
costs on third parties, such as cable-affiliated programmers and
broadcasters? To what extent would the public be harmed if these
privileges did not extend to Internet-based distributors of video
programming?
Program Access. As required by Section 628 of the Act, the
Commission's program access rules provide certain protections to MVPDs
in their efforts to license cable-affiliated programming. These rules:
(i) Prohibit a cable operator or its affiliated, satellite-delivered
programmer from engaging in ``unfair methods of competition or unfair
or deceptive acts or practices'' that have the ``purpose or effect'' of
``hinder[ing] significantly or prevent[ing]'' an MVPD from providing
programming to subscribers or consumers (the ``unfair act''
prohibition); (ii) prohibit a cable operator from unduly or improperly
influencing the decision of its affiliated, satellite-delivered
programmer to sell, or unduly or improperly influencing the
programmer's prices, terms, and conditions for the sale of, satellite-
delivered programming to any unaffiliated MVPD (the ``undue or improper
influence'' rule); and (iii) prohibit a cable-affiliated, satellite-
delivered programmer from discriminating in the prices, terms, and
conditions of sale or delivery of satellite-delivered programming among
or between competing MVPDs (the ``non-discrimination'' rule). To the
extent that an MVPD believes that a cable-affiliated programmer has
violated these rules, it may file a complaint with the Commission.
If the program access rules were to apply, would cable-affiliated
programmers be required to negotiate with and license programming to
potentially large numbers of Internet-based distributors? How will this
impact the value of cable-affiliated programming to traditional MVPDs,
especially as compared to non-cable-affiliated programming? To the
extent that licensing programming to a
[[Page 2085]]
particular Internet-based distributor presents reasonable concerns
about signal security and piracy, do the program access rules
adequately address this issue by recognizing these concerns as a
legitimate reason for a cable-affiliated programmer to withhold
programming from an MVPD? Would extending the reach of the program
access rules have a positive effect for consumers?
We also seek comment on whether and how our proposed rule and
alternative interpretations would impact competition in the video
distribution market (both at present and in the future), specifically
with respect to the program access rules. Among other things, the
program access rules are intended to prevent cable-affiliated
programmers from discriminating among similarly situated MVPDs. If
Internet-based distributors of video programming are deemed not to be
MVPDs because they do not make available transmission paths (and
therefore are ineligible for the benefits of the program access rules),
would there be any regulatory or other constraint that would prevent a
cable-affiliated programmer from making its affiliated programming
available for online distribution to only certain Internet-based
distributors of video programming, such as those owned by its
affiliated cable operator, but not to those owned by other MVPDs? In
such a scenario, because the cable-affiliated programmer would not be
differentiating among ``MVPDs,'' would different treatment be
permissible under the program access rules? How would this impact
competition in the video distribution market? Cablevision contends that
extending the program access rules to Internet-based distributors would
give them too much flexibility compared to existing MVPD competitors.
Is this a concern that we should consider, and if so, why? We note that
the Commission receives few program access complaints; should this
affect our analysis? Or does it reflect that programmers are following
our program access rules and they are working?
Retransmission Consent. Section 325(b) of the Act benefits MVPDs by
requiring broadcasters to negotiate in good faith with MVPDs for
retransmission consent and prohibiting broadcasters from negotiating
exclusive retransmission consent agreements with any MVPD. Absent these
provisions, broadcasters could potentially refuse to negotiate with and
thereby withhold their signals from MVPDs that wish to carry these
signals. To the extent that an MVPD believes that a broadcaster has
violated these provisions, it may file a complaint with the Commission.
We seek comment on the impact that our proposed interpretation of
the definition of MVPD and alternative interpretations would have on
the retransmission consent process. Under our proposal, would the
retransmission consent rules force broadcasters to negotiate with and
license their signals to potentially large numbers of Internet-based
distributors? We seek comment also on whether and how competition in
the video distribution market (both at present and in the future) would
be impacted if Internet-based distributors of video programming are not
considered MVPDs and therefore are not able to benefit from the
retransmission consent rules.
Section 325(b)(1)(A) of the Act provides that ``no cable system or
other multichannel video programming distributor'' shall retransmit a
broadcast signal without the broadcaster's consent. But an entity
wishing to retransmit a broadcast signal also must obtain authorization
to publicly perform the copyrighted works within the broadcast signal.
If we adopt the Linear Programming Interpretation and the Copyright
Office does not afford statutory licenses to Internet-based video
providers, how would we construe a broadcaster's obligation to
negotiate in good faith? What effect should the answer to that question
have on our policy analysis?
Specific Obligations. Below, we seek comment on specific
obligations imposed on MVPDs and how those obligations would apply to
Internet-based distributors of video programming. How costly would it
be for Internet-based distributors of video programming to comply with
these regulations? Would the public be harmed if these obligations did
not extend to Internet-based distributors of video programming and such
distribution became prevalent?
The interpretation of MVPD that we ultimately adopt in this
proceeding may subject certain Internet-based distributors of video
programming to Commission regulation that are not currently subject to
such regulation. What transition period should we allow these entities
to come into compliance with each of the relevant rules?
Program Carriage. The program carriage rules prohibit MVPDs from
(i) requiring a financial interest in a video programming vendor's
program service as a condition for carriage; (ii) coercing a video
programming vendor to provide, or retaliating against a vendor for
failing to provide, exclusive rights as a condition of carriage; or
(iii) unreasonably restraining the ability of an unaffiliated video
programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating in video
programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation
of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage. To the
extent that a programming vendor believes that an MVPD is not in
compliance with these rules, it may file a complaint with the
Commission.
What practical impact, if any, would these rules have on Internet-
based distributors of video programming? As we note above, large,
established cable operators, DBS providers, and technology companies
have announced plans to launch Internet-based video programming
services that would be MVPD services under the Linear Programming
Interpretation. If these companies follow through with these plans,
absent application of the program carriage rules there may be no
regulatory constraint preventing them from demanding a financial
interest or exclusive rights from programmers as a condition for
carriage. Does this argue in favor of adopting an interpretation of
MVPD that would cover providers of these services under the program
carriage rules? Moreover, as more Internet-based distributors invest in
their own programming, they may have an incentive to favor their
affiliated programming over unaffiliated programming on the basis of
affiliation. We seek comment on the effect that the alternative
interpretations will have on negotiations with programmers and
Internet-based video programming services. What are the costs and
benefits of applying the program carriage obligations to Internet-based
video programming services?
Retransmission Consent. As discussed above, Section 325(b)(1)(A) of
the Act provides that ``No cable system or other multichannel video
programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting
station, or any part thereof, except--(A) with the express authority of
the originating station. . . .'' Thus, to the extent that an Internet-
based distributor of video programming qualifies as an MVPD, it must
receive the consent of the broadcaster before retransmitting the
broadcaster's signal. Moreover, Section 325(b) of the Act imposes an
obligation on MVPDs to negotiate in good faith with broadcasters in
obtaining retransmission consent. If a broadcaster believes that an
MVPD has violated these provisions, it may file a complaint with the
Commission.
We seek comment above on how the retransmission consent rules can
benefit
[[Page 2086]]
MVPDs, as we propose to interpret that term. We now seek comment on the
practical impact the obligations of MVPDs under the retransmission
consent rules would have on Internet-based distributors of video
programming that qualify as MVPDs. What impact will the obligation to
negotiate in good faith with broadcasters have on the resources of
Internet-based distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs?
In particular, will Internet-based distributors of video programming
that operate on a nationwide basis have to engage in negotiations with
thousands of broadcasters throughout the nation?
Are some Internet-based distributors of video programming likely to
prefer not to carry broadcast signals? For example, to the extent that
an Internet-based provider provides service nationwide it may prefer
not to offer local content. In that case, would the good faith
negotiation requirements allow these distributors to simply reject all
carriage terms offered by a broadcaster and to refrain from making any
carriage offers of their own? Or, would this conduct amount to a
violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith? Would it matter
whether the distributor declined to negotiate with any broadcast
stations? How will the answers to these questions impact the business
models of Internet-based distributors of video programming that qualify
as MVPDs but would prefer not to carry broadcast signals? Is it likely
or possible that Internet-based distributors will want to carry
broadcast network programming, or to carry broadcast stations
nationwide?
How do network affiliation agreements impact the carriage of
broadcast stations on Internet-based MVPDs? Specifically, to what
extent do existing network affiliation agreements limit or prohibit
local network stations' ability to grant retransmission consent rights
to Internet-based MVPDs? For example, do any network affiliation
agreements prohibit a local network-affiliated station from permitting
the retransmission of the entirety of its signal over the Internet? Do
they limit the retransmission of network programming over the Internet?
Would limiting or prohibiting these provisions harm localism?
Other MVPD Obligations. Closed Captioning. Section 79.1 of the
Commission's rules (the ``television closed captioning rules'')
requires MVPDs to provide closed captioning, defined as the ``visual
display of the audio portion of video programming pursuant to the
technical specifications set forth in this part.'' Internet video
services are not subject to these requirements. Internet-based
distributors of video programming, however, are subject to the
Commission's Internet protocol (``IP'') closed captioning requirements
set forth in Sec. 79.4 of the Commission's rules (the ``IP closed
captioning rules'') to the extent that they make video programming
available directly to end users through a distribution method that uses
IP. The IP closed captioning rules are narrower than the television
closed captioning rules, insofar as the IP closed-captioning rules
require closed captioning of IP-delivered video programming only if the
programming is published or exhibited on television with captions,
whereas the television closed captioning rules require closed
captioning for all new nonexempt English- and Spanish-language video
programming. The Commission has explained that the ``IP closed
captioning rules do not apply to traditional managed video services
that MVPDs provide to their MVPD customers within their service
footprint, regardless of the transmission protocol used; rather, such
services are already subject to Sec. 79.1 of the Commission's rules.''
To the extent that some Internet-based distributors of video
programming qualify as MVPDs, how will this impact their obligations
with respect to closed captioning? Will they be subject to Sec. 79.1
or Sec. 79.4 of the Commission's rules, or will the Commission need to
develop another set of requirements tailored to these services? Will we
need to amend our closed captioning rules if we adopt the Linear
Programming Interpretation, and if so, how?
Video Description. As required by the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the Commission's
rules require MVPD systems that serve 50,000 or more subscribers to
provide 50 hours per quarter of video description, which makes video
programming accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired, on
each of the five most popular nonbroadcast networks. In general, MVPDs
of any size must pass through any video description provided with
programming they carry, including broadcast channels, as long as they
have the technical capability to do so. Section 79.105 of the
Commission's rules requires apparatus designed to receive or play back
video programming to decode and make available the secondary audio
stream, if technically feasible, to facilitate the transmission and
delivery of video description. We seek comment on the costs as well as
the practical impact these obligations will have on an Internet-based
distributor of video programming that qualifies as an MVPD. Are there
attributes of Internet-based distributors of video programming that
make compliance with these requirements more burdensome than for
traditional MVPDs? We also seek comment on our authority to extend our
video description regulations to Internet-delivered MVPDs under the
Linear Programming Interpretation. Will we need to amend our video
description rules if we adopt the Linear Programming Interpretation,
and if so, how?
Accessibility of Emergency Information. Section 79.2 of the
Commission's rules requires MVPDs to comply with certain requirements
pertaining to the accessibility of emergency information by persons
with disabilities. And to make emergency information accessible to
individuals who are blind or visually impaired, Sec. 79.105 of the
Commission's rules requires apparatus designed to receive or play back
video programming to decode and make available the secondary audio
stream, if technically feasible. We seek comment on the costs as well
as the practical impact these obligations will have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs. Will we need
to amend our emergency information accessibility rules if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation, and if so, how?
Accessible User Interfaces, Guides, and Menus. Section 79.108 of
the Commission's rules requires MVPDs to ``ensure that the on-screen
text menus and guides provided by navigation devices for the display or
selection of multichannel video programming are audibly accessible in
real time upon request by individuals who are blind or visually
impaired.'' We seek comment on the costs and the practical impact these
obligations will have on Internet-based distributors of video
programming that qualify as MVPDs, particularly in light of the fact
that digital apparatus (aside from navigation devices) that are
designed to receive digital video (including IP video) must be
accessible to and useable by individuals who are blind or visually
impaired. Will we need to amend our user interface accessibility rules
if we adopt the Linear Programming Interpretation, and if so, how?
Equal Employment Opportunities (``EEO''). The Commission's EEO
rules apply to MVPDs. In general terms, these rules (i) require MVPDs
to provide equal opportunity in employment to all qualified persons and
prohibit MVPDs
[[Page 2087]]
from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or sex; (ii) require MVPDs to engage in certain
outreach and recruitment activities; and (iii) require MVPDs to comply
with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. We seek comment
on the practical impact these obligations will have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs. Do Internet-
based distributors of video programming currently meet some or all of
these requirements? Will we need to amend our EEO rules if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation, and if so, how?
Navigation Devices. Section 629 of the Act directs the Commission
to adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability of
navigation devices used by consumers to access services from MVPDs. The
Commission has adopted several regulations that allow consumers to
attach non-harmful devices to MVPD networks, require MVPDs to offer
separate conditional access elements if they use navigation devices to
perform conditional access functions, and prohibit MVPDs from using
integrated conditional access in the devices that they lease or sell to
their consumers. We seek comment on the practical impact as well as the
costs these obligations will have on Internet-based distributors of
video programming that qualify as MVPDs. To what extent do Internet-
based distributors of video programming use navigation devices in the
provision of their video programming service? If they do use such
devices, do they currently meet these requirements? What devices do
they use to provide programming to subscribers? Sky Angel, for example,
states that its service cannot be viewed without its ``proprietary set-
top box, which Sky Angel directly and remotely controls at all times
for purposes ranging from periodic service and software updates to
service activation or termination.'' Do Internet-based distributors
meet the requirements for an exemption from the integration ban? Are
there aspects of Internet-based video services that make compliance
with these requirements more burdensome than for traditional MVPDs?
Will we need to amend our navigation device rules if we adopt the
Linear Programming Interpretation, and if so, how?
Signal Leakage. The Commission's rules require specified MVPDs to
comply with certain technical rules pertaining to signal leakage, as
well as reporting and notification requirements related thereto. We
expect that in general MVPDs that use Internet protocol to deliver
video will not use aeronautical frequencies and thus will not be
subject to these requirements. We seek comment on this expectation, and
any practical impact these obligations will have on Internet-based
distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs. Will we need
to amend our signal leakage rules if we adopt the Linear Programming
Interpretation, and if so, how?
Inside Wiring. The Commission's cable inside wiring rules apply to
all MVPDs. In general terms, these rules govern the disposition of home
wiring and home run wiring after a subscriber terminates service. To
what extent, if any, would these obligations affect Internet-based
distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs, especially if
they do not control the ``last mile'' of the transmission path used to
deliver video programming to consumers but are affiliated with an
entity that controls the transmission path? We expect that if we adopt
the Linear Programming Interpretation that these inside wiring rules
would not apply to Internet-based distributors of video programming.
Commercial Loudness. As required by the CALM Act, the Commission's
rules require MVPDs to ensure that commercials are transmitted to
consumers at an appropriate loudness level in accordance with a
specified industry standard. Depending on the size of the MVPD and the
type of the commercial at issue (i.e., inserted by the MVPD or embedded
in the programing by a third-party), the Commission's rules may require
an MVPD to install equipment and associated software or perform spot
checks or both. Do these requirements need to be modified to apply to
Internet-based distributors of video programming that qualify as MVPDs,
and if so, how? If the requirements do need to be modified, are there
ways to make the rules less burdensome for Internet-based distributors
of video programming while meeting our statutory mandates?
MDU Access. The Commission's rules prohibit cable operators, common
carriers (or their affiliates) that provide video programming, and OVS
operators from enforcing or executing any provision in a contract that
grants to it the exclusive right to provide any video programming
service to a Multiple Dwelling Unit. The Commission has sought comment
on whether to extend this prohibition to other MVPDs. To the extent the
Commission were to do so, what impact, if any, would this prohibition
have on Internet-based distributors of video programming that qualify
as MVPDs? Is there any way a landlord could restrict a tenant's ability
to access certain content over the Internet to prevent a tenant from
accessing an Internet-based linear video service? Will we need to amend
our MDU access rules if we adopt the Linear Programming Interpretation,
and if so, how?
Other Regulatory Issues. We also seek comment on how other
regulations should account for Internet-based distributors of video
programming that qualify as MVPDs. For example, should we extend any
cable or satellite-specific regulations to MVPDs more generally? If so,
what would be our statutory basis for doing so?
Impact on Content Owners. As discussed in this section, our
interpretation of the definition of an MVPD may impact content owners
in their negotiations with broadcasters, cable networks, and MVPDs. We
seek comment on these issues below.
Broadcast Content. Section 111 of the Copyright Act provides
``cable systems'' (as defined by the Copyright Act) a statutory license
to retransmit copyrighted broadcast performances if the ``cable
system'' pays a statutory fee for those performances. Some content
creators and owners contend that the Commission, in interpreting the
definition of MVPD in the Communications Act, should be cognizant of
the interplay between Section 111 of the Copyright Act and the
Communications Act and even suggest that a Commission decision
interpreting the definition of MVPD to include Internet-based
distributors would conflict with copyright law. But the market and
legal landscape has changed significantly since content creators and
owners made those claims. Therefore, we ask commenters to update the
record with respect to how expanding the definition of MVPD in the
Communications Act to include some Internet-based distributors
interrelates with copyright law.
Cable-Affiliated Content. Through application of the program access
rules, Internet-based distributors that qualify as MVPDs will be
entitled to non-discriminatory access to cable-affiliated networks.
Generally speaking, a programmer licenses content from various content
creators, aggregates the content into a network, and then licenses the
network to MVPDs for distribution. Discovery claims, however, that
cable-affiliated networks cannot license all of the content displayed
on their networks for distribution on the Internet because they
frequently do not possess the right to authorize Internet distribution
of that content. Rather, Discovery argues that (i) content
[[Page 2088]]
creators frequently retain for themselves the rights to Internet
distribution in order to generate a separate revenue stream by
displaying the content on their own Web sites or by selling the content
to other video providers; and (ii) obtaining Internet distribution
rights is simply too expensive for some networks. What effect should
the Copyright Office's decisions have on our statutory and policy
analysis?
To what extent do cable-affiliated networks possess--or have the
ability to negotiate for--the right to authorize distribution of
content displayed on their network over the Internet? If we adopt the
Linear Video Interpretation, what impact does that have on existing
rights for content distribution? We note that some cable-affiliated
networks are made available over the Internet to authenticated MVPD
subscribers. Does this reflect that cable-affiliated programmers
possess the right to authorize distribution of content displayed on
their network over the Internet? Does the concern about lack of rights
to authorize Internet distribution of content apply only with respect
to content not owned by the network? To what extent do cable-affiliated
networks own the content displayed on their networks (or are affiliated
with the content creators or otherwise possesses all of the rights with
respect to distribution of that content)? To what extent is the content
displayed on cable-affiliated networks owned by entities unaffiliated
with the network?
Would or should the adoption of the proposed definition of an MVPD
have any effect on a cable-affiliated network that does not possess the
right to authorize Internet distribution of content displayed on its
network? In other words, would or should the network be required to
obtain such rights to comply with the program access rules if certain
Internet-based distributors qualify as MVPDs? We seek comment on how
the resolution of this question would impact content creators, cable-
affiliated programmers, and MVPDs, either traditional or Internet-
based. We also seek comment on our authority to require entities to
enter into contracts for these distribution rights.
Non-Broadcast, Non-Cable-Affiliated Content. If we were to require
cable-affiliated networks to obtain Internet distribution rights from
content creators to comply with the program access rules, what impact,
if any, would or should this have on non-cable-affiliated networks? For
example, Ovation claims that, if cable-affiliated networks are required
to obtain Internet distribution rights, ``marketplace pressures would
foreseeably require other networks to do the same.'' We seek comment on
this concern.
Regulatory Treatment of Cable Operators and DBS Providers that
Provide Linear Video Services via IP. It seems evident that merely
using IP to deliver cable service does not alter the classification of
a facility as a cable system or of an entity as a cable operator. That
is, to the extent an operator may provide video programming services
over its own facilities using IP delivery within its footprint it
remains subject to regulation as a cable operator. At the same time, we
understand that some cable operators and DBS providers are exploring
new business models that might be indistinguishable from other over-
the-top (``OTT'') services--that is, linear video services that travel
over the public Internet and that cable operators do not treat as
managed video services on any cable system. As mentioned above, cable
operators and DBS providers are obtaining rights for online
distribution of content, and some have launched or may soon launch
Internet-based video programming services. Below, we seek comment on
the regulatory treatment of national OTT video services that a cable
operator or DBS provider may provide nationally-as contrasted to the
traditional services it offers.
Cable Service Provided via IP Over the Operator's Facilities. The
Act defines a cable operator as, essentially, an entity that provides
cable service over a cable system. Thus, we must interpret the three
terms--cable service, cable system, and cable operator--together to
determine the proper regulatory treatment of IP-based services provided
by cable operators. The Act defines cable service as ``(A) the one-way
transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other
programming service, and (B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is
required for the selection or use of such video programming or other
programming service.'' The Commission and other authorities have
previously concluded that the statute's definition of ``cable service''
includes linear IP video service.
Second, to the extent a cable operator uses ``a set of closed
transmission paths'' to provide cable service, as one providing IP
video programming over its copper wire (including coaxial cable) or
fiber optic cable does, its facility meets Section 602(7) of the Act's
definition of cable system: ``a facility, consisting of a set of closed
transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and
control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which
includes video programming and which is provided to multiple
subscribers within a community, but such term does not include (A) a
facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of 1 or
more television broadcast stations; (B) a facility that serves
subscribers without using any public right-of-way; (C) a facility of a
common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions
of subchapter II of this chapter, except that such facility shall be
considered a cable system (other than for purposes of section 541(c) of
this title) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of
video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such
use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; (D) an open
video system that complies with section 573 of this title; or (E) any
facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its
electric utility system.''
Finally, an entity that delivers cable services via IP is a cable
operator to the extent it delivers those services as managed video
services over its own facilities and within its footprint. This is
compelled by the Act's definition of a cable operator as a ``person or
group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and
directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest
in such cable system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible
for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a
cable system.''
IP-based service provided by a cable operator over its facilities
and within its footprint must be regulated as a cable service not only
because it is compelled by the statutory definitions; it is also good
policy, as it ensures that cable operators will continue to be subject
to the pro-competitive, consumer-focused regulations that apply to
cable even if they provide their services via IP.
Congress and the Commission advanced several pro-competitive,
consumer-focused values when they adopted the cable-specific provisions
of the Act and the rules implementing these important provisions. The
Act and our rules include many cable-specific requirements, including
the following: Annual regulatory fees; Emergency Alert System (``EAS'')
requirements; the V-Chip; commercial limits in children's programs;
network non-duplication; syndicated program exclusivity; notice to
broadcasters regarding: (i) Deletion or repositioning of a broadcast
signal, (ii) a change in designation of principal headend, (iii) change
in technical configuration, (iv) the provision of service to 1,000
subscribers, thereby entitling broadcast stations to exercise non-
duplication protection or
[[Page 2089]]
syndicated exclusivity protection; political programming and candidate
access rules; sponsorship identification; lotteries; public inspection
file; public, educational, or governmental channels (``PEG''); program
access; leased access; various reporting requirements; cross-ownership
restrictions; prohibition on buy outs; national subscriber limits
(horizontal ownership restriction); limits on carriage of vertically
integrated programming; various franchising requirements; rate
regulation, including a requirement to offer a basic service tier, a
prohibition on negative option billing, an obligation to offer a tier
buy-through option, and requirements pertaining to information on
subscriber bills; regulation of services, facilities, and equipment,
including minimum technical standards and notification to customers of
changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions; consumer
protection and customer service; consumer electronics equipment
compatibility, including prohibition on scrambling or encrypting the
basic service tier; support for unidirectional digital cable products
(Plug and Play); protection of subscriber privacy; transmission of
obscene programming; and scrambling of cable channels for non-
subscribers.
In particular, these obligations on cable operators are critical
for noncommercial, local, and independent broadcasters. Sections 614
and 615 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the
Commission entitle commercial and noncommercial television broadcasters
to carriage on local cable television systems. When the Commission
proposed implementing regulations, it noted that Congress emphasized
strongly that the public interest demands that cable subscribers be
able to access their local commercial and noncommercial broadcast
stations. That congressional policy directive persists today; and the
continued application of these requirements to cable operators that
provide video programming over IP will ensure that local broadcasters
will be carried, and that other cable-centric regulations will apply,
regardless of the method that the cable operator uses to deliver the
cable service.
Cable Operators Offering OTT Services. We tentatively conclude that
video programming services that a cable operator may offer over the
Internet should not be regulated as cable services. Some cable
operators have announced plans to offer video programming services via
the Internet. If a cable operator delivers video programming service
over the Internet, rather than as a managed video service over its own
facilities, we tentatively conclude that this entity would be (i) a
cable operator with respect to its managed video service, and (ii) a
non-cable MVPD under our proposed Linear Programming Interpretation
with respect to its OTT service. To the extent a consumer located
within a cable operator's footprint may access the cable operator's OTT
service using that cable operator's broadband facilities for Internet
access, how should this arrangement be classified? We tentatively
conclude that such an OTT service, if provided to consumers without
regard to whether they subscribe to the cable operator's managed video
service, would be a non-cable MVPD service inside and outside of the
operator's footprint, even if it is accessible over that cable
operator's broadband facilities. We seek comment on whether there is
any reason that our tentative conclusion should change if a cable
operator provides an OTT service within its footprint only, rather than
nationally. Would our analysis change if the OTT service were bundled
with the cable service? Finally, we seek comment on the likely forms
that new OTT services will take, and on both the application of the
statutory definitions discussed above to such services and the policy
implications of classifying these services.
DBS Providers Offering OTT Services. Some DBS providers offer
linear OTT services (and have announced plans to expand those services)
via the Internet. To the extent that DBS providers offer video
programming services over the Internet, we tentatively conclude that
those services should not be regulated as DBS service, and therefore
should not be subject to the regulatory and statutory obligations and
privileges of such services. If we adopt our proposed Linear
Programming Interpretation, those services would be MVPD services
subject to the regulatory and statutory obligations and privileges of
such services. We reach this tentative conclusion because that service
does not use the providers' satellite facilities, but rather relies on
the Internet for delivery. We believe that this tentative conclusion is
consistent with the Act and our rules. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
Authority. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued pursuant
to authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 325, 403,
616, 628, 629, 634 and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 325, 403, 536, 548, 549,
554, and 613.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding initiated by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be treated as ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.\1\ Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 CFR 1.1200-1.1216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules,\2\ 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''). Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 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
[[Page 2090]]
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.
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. 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 and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building. 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. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See id. Sec. Sec. 1.415, 1.419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection 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. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules
addressed in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must
be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed
in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the
first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking seeks comment on a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 325, 403, 616, 628, 629, 634 and 713 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), 325, 403, 536, 548, 549, 554, and 613, that the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal
employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. 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, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549,
552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
0
2. Section 76.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (rr) and (ss) to read
as follows:
Sec. 76.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
(rr) Linear Video. A stream of video programming that is
prescheduled by the programmer.
(ss) Multichannel Video Programming Distributor. A person such as,
but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint
distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a
television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes
available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels
of video programming. As used in this paragraph, channel means linear
video without regard to the means by which the programming is
distributed.
Sec. 76.64 [Amended].
0
3. Section 76.64 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
0
4. Section 76.71 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.71 Scope of application.
(a) The provisions of this subpart shall apply to any corporation,
partnership, association, joint-stock company, or trust engaged
primarily in the management or operation of any cable system. Cable
entities subject to these provisions include those systems defined in
Sec. 76.5(a), all satellite master antenna television systems serving
50 or more subscribers, and any multichannel video programming
distributor. Multichannel video programming distributors do not include
any entity which lacks control over the video programming distributed.
For purposes of this subpart, an entity has control over the video
programming it distributes, if it selects video programming channels or
programs and determines how they are presented for sale to consumers.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the regulations in this subpart are not
applicable to the owners or originators (of programs or channels of
programming) that distribute six or fewer channels of commonly-owned
video programming over a leased transport facility. For purposes of
this subpart, programming services are ``commonly-owned'' if the same
entity holds a majority of the stock (or is a general partner) of each
program service.
* * * * *
Sec. 76.905 [Amended].
0
5. Section 76.905 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
0
6. Section 76.1000 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.1000 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 2091]]
(e) Multichannel video programming distributor. The term
``multichannel video programming distributor'' means an entity that
falls under the definition provided in Sec. 76.5(rr) as well as buying
groups or agents of all such entities.
Note to paragraph (e): A video programming provider that
provides more than one channel of video programming on an open video
system is a multichannel video programming distributor for purposes
of this subpart O and Sec. 76.1507.
* * * * *
Sec. 76.1200 [Amended].
0
7. Section 76.1200 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
8. Section 76.1300 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.1300 Definitions.
* * * * *
(d) Multichannel video programming distributor. The term
``multichannel video programming distributor'' means an entity that
falls under the definition provided in Sec. 76.5(rr) as well as buying
groups or agents of all such entities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-30777 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P