Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 44106-44111 [2015-18215]

Download as PDF asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 22, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email PRA@ fcc.gov and to Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 3060–0207. Title: Part 11—Emergency Alert System (EAS), Sixth Report and Order, FCC 12–7. Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government. Number of Respondents: 63,080 respondents; 3,569,028 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 43 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement. Obligation to Respond: Obligatory for all entities required to participate in EAS. Total Annual Burden: 82,008 hours. Total Annual Cost: No cost. Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact. Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Filings will be given the presumption of confidentiality. The Commission will allow test data and reports containing individual test data to be shared on a confidential basis with other Federal agencies and state governmental emergency management agencies that have confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). See 5 U.S.C. 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Public Law 110–175, 121 Stat. 2524 (stating the FOIA confidentiality standard, along with relevant exemptions). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 Needs and Uses: Part 11 contains rules and regulations addressing the nation’s Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS provides the President with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public at the national, state and local area level during periods of national emergency. The EAS also provides state and local governments and the National Weather Service with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public concerning emergency situations posing a threat to life and property. The FCC is now submitting this information collection as a revision to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a mandatory Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS) that EAS Participants must utilize to file identifying and test result data as part of their participation in the second nationwide EAS test. Although the ETRS adopted in this Sixth Report and Order in EB Docket No. 04–296, FCC 15–60, largely resembles the version used during the first nationwide EAS test, it also contains certain improvements, such as support for prepopulation of form data, and integration of form data into an EAS ‘‘Mapbook.’’ ETRS will continue to collect such identifying information as station call letters, license identification number, geographic coordinates, EAS designation (LP, NP, etc.), EAS monitoring assignment, and emergency contact information. EAS Participants will submit this identifying data prior to the test date. On the day of the test, EAS Participants will input test results into ETRS (e.g., whether the test message was received and processed successfully). They will input the remaining data called for by our reporting rules (e.g., more detailed test results) within 45 day of the test. The Commission believes that structuring ETRS in this fashion will allow EAS Participants to timely provide the Commission with test data in a minimally burdensome fashion. As the subsequent analysis indicates, this revised collection will cause no change in the burden estimates or reporting and record keeping requirements that the Commission submitted (and which OMB subsequently approved) for the 2011 system. The revised information collection requirements contained in this collection are as follows: Section 11.21(a) requires EAS Participants to provide the identifying information required by the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) no later than sixty days after the publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the approval by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and an effective date of the rule amendment, or within sixty days of the launch of the ETRS, whichever is later, and shall renew this identifying information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS Participant’s State EAS Plan filed pursuant to section 11.21 of this part, and consistent with the requirements of paragraph 11.61(a)(3)(iv) of this part, section 11.61(a)(3)(iv) requires Test results as required to be logged by all EAS Participants into the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) as determined by the Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, subject to the following requirements. EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information required by the ETRS initially no later than sixty days after the publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and an effective date of the rule amendment, or within sixty days of the launch of the ETRS, whichever is later, and shall renew this identifying information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS Participant’s State EAS Plan filed pursuant to section 11.21 of this part. EAS Participants must also file ‘‘Day of test’’ data in the ETRS within 24 hours of any nationwide test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–18091 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [MB Docket No. 15–158; DA 15–784] Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. This document solicits data, information, and comment on the status of competition in SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the market for the delivery of video programming for the Commission’s Seventeenth Report (17th Report). The 17th Report will provide updated information and metrics regarding the video marketplace in 2014. Comments and data submitted in response to this document in conjunction with publicly available information and filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings will be used for the report to Congress. DATES: Interested parties may file comments, on or before August 21, 2015, and reply comments on or before September 21, 2015. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Bring, Media Bureau (202) 418– 2164, or email at danny.bring@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s document, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming. The complete text of the document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry 1. This Public Notice (Notice) solicits data, information, and comment on the state of competition in the delivery of video programming for the Commission’s Seventeenth Report (17th Report). We seek to update the information and metrics provided in the Sixteenth Report (16th Report) and report on the state of competition in the video marketplace in 2014. 2. Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) amended the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act) and directed the Commission to establish regulations for the purpose of increasing competition and diversity in multichannel video programming distribution, increasing the availability of satellite delivered programming, and spurring the development of communications technologies. To measure progress toward these goals, Congress required the Commission to report annually on ‘‘the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.’’ 3. In 1992, when Congress first required the Commission to report on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming, most consumers had the limited choice of receiving over-the-air broadcast VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 television stations or subscribing to the video services their local cable company offered. From the consumer perspective, head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) began in 1994 with the introduction of direct broadcast satellite (DBS) video services. In 2005 an additional competitive alternative for MVPD services became available to consumers when telephone companies began offering video services in some areas cable operators already served. More recently, most consumers have additional alternatives for the delivery of video programming from online video distributors’ (OVDs) offerings of video content over the Internet. Scope of the Report 4. In the 17th Report, we expect to continue using the analytical framework used in the 16th Report. Under this framework, we categorize entities that deliver video programming in one of three groups—MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. We also plan to examine consumer premises equipment that enables consumers to view programming on their television sets and on other residential or mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). In addition, we plan to discuss the deployment of new technologies and services, as well as innovation and investment in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. Analytic Framework 5. We categorize entities that deliver video programming into one of three groups: MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. Within each of the three groups, we describe the group’s: • Providers, which may include the number, size, and footprint of the entities in the group, horizontal and/or vertical concentration, regulatory and market conditions affecting entry, and any recent entry or exit from the group; • Business models and competitive strategies, which may include the technologies entities employ to deliver programing, pricing plans, and product and service differences; and • Selected Operating and Financial Statistics, which may include statistics related to the number of subscribers or viewers, revenue, and other financial indicators. 6. In the 17th Report, we plan to report on a calendar year-end basis. We request data as of year-end 2014 (i.e., December 31, 2014). PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44107 I. Providers of Delivered Video Programming Multichannel Video Programming Distributors 1. MVPD Providers 7. The vast majority of MVPD subscribers rely on cable, DBS, or telephone MVPDs to provide their video services and this report will focus on these entities. For cable, DBS, and telephone MVPDs, we seek data on the number of providers, the number of homes passed, the number of subscribers for delivered video programming, the number of linear channels and amount of non-linear programming offered, and the ability of subscribers to watch programming on multiple devices both inside and outside the home. Are there differences in the number and types of MVPDs between rural and urban areas? 8. We request updated information on the number of markets where DBS operators provide local-into-local broadcast service. With respect to noncontiguous states and U.S. territories, do DBS MVPDs offer the same video packages at the same prices as they offer in the 48 contiguous states? Do subscribers need different or additional equipment to receive DBS MVPD services? 9. Horizontal Concentration. In the 16th Report, we estimated the number of housing units nationwide with access to two, three, and four or more MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on this measure of horizontal concentration and on any other measure proposed by commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between the number of MVPDs available to a consumer and competition. 10. Vertical Integration. In the 16th Report, we identified the national video programming networks, regional video programming networks, and regional sports networks affiliated with one or more MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on these categories of vertical integration and on any other categories proposed by commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between vertical integration and competition. 11. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. Regulations and market conditions affect competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. We seek data, information, and comment on the impact of the Communications Act and Commission rules on competition, innovation and investment. We recognize that the regulations applicable to cable operators may differ from the E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 44108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES regulations applicable to DBS systems and telephone MVPDs. How do regulatory disparities affect competition? What specific actions could the Commission take to facilitate competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? 12. We seek comment on the impact of marketplace conditions on MVPD competition. We also request data, information, and comment regarding the entry and exit of MVPDs in 2014. We are specifically interested in entry that increases the number of MVPDs available to consumers and exit that reduces the number of MVPDs available to consumers. 2. MVPD Business Models and Competitive Strategies 13. MVPDs may choose from a variety of business models and competitive strategies to attract and retain subscribers and viewers. We seek descriptions of MVPD business models and competitive strategies in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. How do MVPDs attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers? How do MVPDs distinguish their video services from their closest competitors? Do bundles of video, Internet, and voice services help attract and retain video subscribers? Do cable and telephone MVPDs offering bundles over wireline facilities with two-way capability have competitive advantages over DBS MVPDs offering video using satellites with one-way capability and Internet and phone services using cooperative arrangements with other entities? Is there a trend to unbundle or offer smaller, less expensive video packages? Some MVPDs are now offering skinny bundles that include Internet and video packages with a relatively small number of video channels. Are skinny bundles attracting cord cutters (households that have cancelled MVPD service) and cord nevers (households that have never had MVPD service) or helping to retain existing subscribers that may have been thinking about cutting the cord? 14. Do some MVPDs, such as those of a certain size, have a competitive advantage in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? Do some MVPDs pay lower prices for video programming? Do the competitive strategies of certain MVPDs include arrangements with content providers that make it more difficult for competitors to acquire programming on reasonable terms? To the extent that any of these answers is yes, please describe the characteristics of such MVPDs. 15. Have vertically integrated MVPDs (i.e., MVPDs with ownership interest in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 video programming) made it more difficult for competitors to acquire programming by restricting access or raising prices? What is the impact of rising programming prices and rising retransmission consent fees on MVPD business models and competitive strategies? 16. To enhance their competitive position in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming, MVPDs have deployed TV Everywhere, which allows MVPD subscribers to access both linear and video-on-demand (VOD) programs on a variety of in-home and mobile Internet-connected devices. In addition to TV Everywhere, which requires an MVPD subscription, some MVPDs are offering online video packages, which do not require an MVPD subscription, to attract cord cutters and cord nevers. We request comment on the competitive strategies of MVPDs launching online video services separate from their MVPD services. 17. Some MVPDs have added various video-related fees to monthly billing statements. Such fees include, for instance, a broadcast fee to partially recoup retransmission consent fees charged by local broadcast stations and a sports fee to defray the cost of sports programming. We seek comment on the competitive strategy associated with adding video-related fees as opposed to raising monthly subscription prices. Do such fees enable MVPDs to better attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers? 18. We request information on MVPDs’ deployment of new technologies, including transitioning to all-digital distribution, adding Internet Protocol (IP)-delivered video programming, deploying more efficient video encoding technologies (e.g., MPEG–4 and High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)), developing and testing enhanced transmission technologies (e.g., DOCSIS 3.1) and expanding 3–D and 4K services. 19. We are interested in the extent of substitution between MVPD services, OVD services, and over-the-air broadcast television. We realize that substitution represents only part of the competitive interaction between MVPDs, broadcasters, and OVDs. Consumers may also use OVDs and broadcast stations to supplement (i.e., add to) and complement (i.e., combine with) their MVPD services. Our primary focus, however, is substitution. What video services do MVPDs offer that OVDs and broadcast stations do not? To what extent do the prices of MVPD services lead households to substitute OVD services and over-the-air broadcast PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 services for MVPD services? When marketing their video services, have MVPDs encouraged households to switch away from OVD services and over-the-air broadcast services and rely more on MVPD services? What actions have MVPDs taken in response to actual or potential competition from OVDs and broadcast stations? 3. Selected MVPD Operating and Financial Statistics 20. In the 16th Report, we provided the following MVPD operating and financial statistics: Video packages and pricing, number of video subscribers and penetration rates, and revenue. We expect to report comparable statistics in the 17th Report. We seek data on the number of housing units passed nationally, the number of subscribers, and the penetration rates. We seek data on MVPD subscriber losses and the factors leading to those losses, especially competition from OVDs. We request data on MVPD revenue. We recognize that cable and telephone MVPDs also provide Internet and phone services using their own facilities. Our focus, however, is the market for the delivery of video programming, and commenters submitting data for operating and financial statistics should separate video from non-video services. Broadcast Television Stations 4. Broadcast Television Station Providers 21. Providers of broadcast television services include both individual and group-owned stations that hold licenses to broadcast video programming to consumers. Broadcast stations deliver video programming over the air to consumers. How many households view broadcast programming over-the-air exclusively, and how many households receive such programming over the air on some televisions not connected to an MVPD service? How many households use a combination of over-the-air stations and OVD services? 22. Horizontal Concentration. Commission rules limit the number of broadcast television stations an entity can own in a DMA, depending on the number of independently owned stations in the market. Does group ownership strengthen the competitive position of broadcast stations in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming, either through increased advertising revenue or lower prices for video programming? Does it affect the prices, terms or conditions of carriage agreements with MVPDs? What is the impact of group ownership on the E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES competitive position of independentlyowned stations? 23. Vertical Integration. Does vertical integration strengthen a broadcast station’s ability to negotiate carriage rights with MVPDs? Are vertically integrated broadcast stations stronger competitors in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? 24. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. The Commission’s spectrum allocation and licensing policies affect broadcast television by limiting the number of stations located in a given geographic area. Commission rules limit the number of broadcast television stations an entity can own in a DMA as well as limit the aggregate national audience reach of commonly owned broadcast television stations. The Commission’s territorial exclusivity rule restricts the geographic area in which a television broadcast station may obtain exclusive rights to video programming. We seek data, information, and comment on the impact of these regulations, the impact of the upcoming incentive auction, and the potential impact of our recent Declaratory Ruling regarding foreign broadcast investment on competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. 5. Broadcast Television Station Business Models and Competitive Strategies 25. What competitive strategies are broadcast television stations using to distinguish themselves from other broadcast television stations? What competitive strategies are broadcast stations using to strengthen their competitive position in the market for the delivery of video programming? We seek data, information, and comment on the use of multicast streams, the amount of HD programming, mobile TV, and broadcast station Web sites. We seek comment regarding the ability of broadcast stations to secure MVPD carriage of their multicast signals and the impact of such carriage on the financial viability of their multicast operations. What effect does the ability to offer HD or ultra HD programming have on a broadcast station’s ability to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? What progress has been made regarding mobile TV? In what ways are broadcasters using their stations’ Web sites to strengthen their competitive position in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? 26. To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as providing unique services, such as local news, sports, weather and emergency alerts, to increase viewership? Do joint sales VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 agreements (JSAs), local marketing agreements (LMAs), and shared services agreements (SSAs) affect the provision of local news offered by broadcast stations, and if so, how? Has online delivery contributed to increased investment in broadcast station local news and information programming? 27. For many years, broadcast television networks used their local broadcast television-affiliated stations as their primary distributor of programming. Broadcast network programming, however, has become increasingly available from OVDs. In addition, broadcast networks are increasingly providing OVD services themselves to strengthen their competitive position in the market for delivery of video programming. Are other broadcast networks planning to offer subscription VOD and live programming, either as standalone OVD services or through joint ventures like Hulu and Hulu Plus? How successful are their subscription offerings, relative to their free offerings? When networks offer their programming as OVDs, how does this impact the financial wellbeing of affiliated stations that previously offered such programming to the public on an exclusive basis? Have local broadcast stations adapted their business models and competitive strategies in ways that indicate that they view MVPDs and OVDs as competitors? We seek comment generally on the effect of the broadcast networks’ increasing provision of OVD service. In particular, what effect is this having on the relationship between broadcast networks and their affiliates? What competitive strategies are broadcast stations using to remain important to broadcast networks for program distribution? 28. We are interested in the extent of substitution between over-the-air services and MVPDs and between overthe-air services and OVDs. Do broadcast stations compare their video services to MVPD and OVD services? To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as substitutes for MVPD and OVD services? What specific marketing activities have broadcast stations used, if any, to encourage households to switch away from MVPDs and OVDs and rely more on over-the-air services? 6. Selected Broadcast Television Station Operating and Financial Statistics 29. In the 16th Report, we provided the following broadcast television station operating and financial statistics: Audiences; revenue from advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent fees, ancillary services, and online services; cash flow estimates and PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44109 pre-tax profits; and capital expenditures. We seek data on the viewership of broadcast television stations from over-the-air reception, MVPD carriage, online viewing, and mobile TV. Has multicasting, online viewing, and/or mobile TV increased broadcast station viewership in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? We seek data on broadcast television station revenues from advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent fees, ancillary services, and subscription fees from OVD offerings. We seek information and comment on the impact, if any, of JSAs, LMAs and SSAs on retransmission consent negotiations and fees. Online Video Distributors 7. OVD Providers 30. In the video marketplace, Internetdelivered video services are expanding and evolving quickly and significantly. Linear programming is becoming increasingly available. And new OVD service offerings are provided by both new entrants to the marketplace and existing industry participants developing new products. The Commission has in the past defined an ‘‘OVD’’ as any entity that offers video content by means of the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP)-based transmission path provided by a person or entity other than the OVD. Pursuant to the definition, an OVD has not included an MVPD inside its MVPD footprint or an MVPD to the extent it is offering online video content as a component of an MVPD subscription to customers whose homes are inside its MVPD footprint. As these developments continue apace, the Commission may wish to consider modifying the definition of ‘‘OVD’’ it has used in previous Reports to better reflect the evolving marketplace. For instance, some traditional MVPDs are offering or considering offering Internet-delivered services that would not be restricted to subscribers to their traditional MVPD services. Moreover, the Commission has opened a proceeding to consider whether an Internet-delivered service that offers linear programming, as DISH’s Sling TV, for example, does, should be considered to be an MVPD as that term is defined in the Communications Act. We will want to consider any revised definition of OVD in coordination with any action the Commission may take in the MVPD proceeding. In the meantime, for purposes of the 17th Report we seek data on services that fall within our previous definition of OVD and on other E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices Internet-delivered services that are available or are becoming available that should be considered in an assessment of the state of competition in this segment of the marketplace. 31. In the 16th Report, we categorized and discussed OVD providers in terms of the types of services offered (e.g., subscription, advertising-supported, rental, electronic sell-through, and sports). We expect to follow a similar approach in the 17th Report. Because OVDs are relatively new entities in the video marketplace, data regarding this category tends to be more dispersed and less standardized and reliable, relative to more long-established data for the MVPD and broadcast station categories. We seek comment on the most comprehensive and most reliable data sources for OVDs, individually and as a group. 32. Horizontal Concentration. Because OVDs may be accessed wherever consumers can connect to high-speed Internet, we assume that OVDs compete with one another in a national marketplace. In the 16th Report, we noted the difficulty of measuring OVD market shares as many OVDs are subsidiaries or divisions of companies that do not report data separately for OVD services. We seek comment on an appropriate measure of OVD horizontal concentration. 33. Vertical Integration. Some OVDs are vertically integrated with MVPDs, video content creators and aggregators, and manufacturers of devices used for viewing video programming. In addition, some OVDs provide video storage services and operate content delivery networks (CDNs). Do these vertical relationships strengthen the competitive positions of OVDs? We seek data, information, and comment regarding OVD vertical integration and its impact on competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. 34. Regulatory and Marketplace Conditions Affecting Competition. We request data, information, and comment on regulatory and marketplace conditions that affect OVDs’ ability to compete for the delivery of video programming. OVD regulations include possible reclassification of some OVDs as MVPDs, Open Internet rules, and IP closed captioning requirements for video programming. OVDs depend on ISPs to deliver video content to consumers. To what extent does this dependence impact the ability of OVDs to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming? Are ISPs providing consumers with sufficient Internet speeds to view OVD programming whenever, and wherever, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 and on whatever devices they choose? Do ISPs that are also MVPDs have incentives to disadvantage OVDs? What specific actions are OVDs and ISPs taking individually or cooperatively to improve video streaming quality and facilitate the viewing of video online? Do OVDs encounter unique issues (relative to MVPDs and broadcast stations) when acquiring content rights? 8. OVD Business Models and Competitive Strategies 35. We seek information on the business models and competitive strategies OVDs use to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. How do OVDs differentiate their services and attract consumers? What are the key differences in terms of the video service offerings, picture quality, original programming, distinctive content, linear programming, video streaming quality, enabling viewing on multiple devices, pricing, and revenue sources? 36. We are interested in the extent of substitution between OVDs and MVPDs and between OVDs and over-the-air broadcast services. We seek data, information, and comment on the extent of substitution between OVDs and MVPDs and between OVDs and overthe-air broadcast services. Do OVDs compare their video services to MVPD and over-the-air services? To what extent do OVDs market themselves as substitutes for MVPD and over-the-air services? What specific marketing activities have OVDs used, if any, to encourage households to rely more on the video services of OVDs than on MVPDs and over-the-air broadcast stations? Substitution involves both the video content offered and relative prices. What effects have the prices charged by OVDs had on substitution? 9. Selected OVD Operating and Financial Statistics 37. In the 16th Report, we provided the following OVD operating and financial statistics: Usage, viewership, subscribership, revenue, investment, and profitability. In the 17th Report, we again plan to report on these operating and financial statistics. We seek information concerning the amount and type of video programming OVDs offer (e.g., television programs, movies, and sports). We seek data on the number of consumers who view OVD programming, the number of programs they view, and the amount of time they spend viewing. We seek data on OVD revenue from subscriptions, advertising, and fees for video rentals and sales. PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 II. Consumer Premises Equipment 38. Consumer premises equipment (CPE) refers to devices that enable consumers to watch video content delivered by MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs. We seek comment on the major developments in CPE devices that affect competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. What new CPE products have been introduced? What are the major technological developments in CPE? 39. While consumers have traditionally leased the set-top boxes necessary for viewing MVPD programming, they purchase most other CPE devices. We seek comment on the competitive strategies associated with leasing set-top boxes. We also seek comment on the effects of set top box leasing on innovation and investment in CPE devices. To what extent do the settop boxes provided by MVPDs limit the ability to access programming offered by OVDs? What are the consumer benefits and costs of leased set-top boxes? What alternatives do MVPD subscribers have to leasing a set-top box? We seek information and comment on the availability of retail alternatives to leased set-top boxes. Are consumers able to receive the full suite of an MVPD’s video services via these retail alternatives? III. Consumer Behavior 40. We request data on the number or percentage of households that have HD televisions, ultra HD televisions, Internet-connected televisions, DVRs, and mobile video devices (e.g., laptops, tablets, and smartphones). We also seek data on trends that compare consumer viewing of linear video programming with time-shifted programming. To what extent are consumers dropping or limiting MVPD services in favor of OVDs or a combination of OVDs and over-the-air television? Do some consumers view OVD services separately, or in conjunction with overthe-air broadcast television services as a potential substitute for some or all MVPD services? Do consumers who do not subscribe to MVPD services share common characteristics? We seek comment on the relationship between consumer behavior (e.g., binge viewing, time shifting, viewing outside the home, viewing on multiple devices) and the business models and competitive strategies of entities in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. 41. MVPD, OVDs, and broadcast stations use television, newspapers, mailings, and Web sites to reach potential consumers and provide information about video services and E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices prices. Do consumers have sufficient information to easily compare video services and price offerings? What do consumers value most when choosing between and among MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs? What reasons do consumers give for switching from MVPD services to reliance on OVDs and/or over-the-air services (e.g., price, programming)? IV. Additional Issues 42. With this Notice, we seek data, information, and comment on a wide range of issues in order to report on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. To make the 17th Report as useful as possible, are there other issues, additional information, or data we should include in the report? In the interest of streamlining the report, we request comment on issues, information, and data that could be modified or eliminated without impairing the value of the 17th Report to Congress on the status of competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Procedural Matters 43. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 1.204(b)(1). 44. Comment Information. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings concerning matters referenced in this document should refer to MB Docket No. 12–203. 45. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https:// fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 46. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. D 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. D U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. D People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@ fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 47. For further information about this Notice, please contact Dan Bring at (202) 418–2164, danny.bring@fcc.gov, or Marcia Glauberman at (202) 418–7046, marcia.glauberman@fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commission. Thomas Horan, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 2015–18215 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. R–1503] Application of Enhanced Prudential Standards and Reporting Requirements to General Electric Capital Corporation Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Final order applying enhanced prudential standards and reporting requirements to General Electric Capital Corporation. AGENCY: General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC) is a nonbank financial company that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) has designated under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) for supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board). Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Board must, as part of its supervision of a nonbank financial firm designated by SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44111 the Council, adopt enhanced prudential standards for the firm that help prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the material financial distress or failure of the firm. This final order establishes these enhanced prudential standards for GECC. In light of the substantial similarity of GECC’s activities and risk profile to that of a similarly sized bank holding company, the enhanced prudential standards adopted by the Board are similar to those that apply to large bank holding companies, including capital requirements; capital-planning and stress-testing requirements; liquidity requirements; risk-management and risk-committee requirements; and reporting requirements. The Board has tailored these standards to reflect GECC’s risk profile and its ongoing plan to divest certain assets and business lines and reorganize its operations. The Board has also deferred application of the enhanced capital, liquidity, governance, and reporting provisions until January 1, 2018. DATES: The final order is effective in two phases. Phase I Requirements, as described more fully below, are effective on January 1, 2016. Phase II Requirements, as described more fully below, are effective on January 1, 2018, unless otherwise noted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Misback, Associate Director, (202) 452– 3799, Jyoti Kohli, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452–2539, or Elizabeth MacDonald, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 475–6316, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Laurie Schaffer, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452–2277, Tate Wilson, Counsel, (202) 452–3696, or Dan Hickman, Attorney, (202) 973–7432, Legal Division. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Framework for Supervision of GECC and Enhanced Prudential Standards A. Phase I Requirements 1. Capital Requirements 2. Liquidity Requirements B. Phase II Requirements 1. Risk-Management and Risk Committee Requirements 2. Capital Requirements—Additional RiskBased and Leverage Capital Requirements 3. Capital Planning Requirements—Capital Plan Rule 4. Stress Testing Requirements 5. Liquidity Requirements 6. Other Prudential Standards: Restrictions on Intercompany Transactions 7. Future Standards E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44106-44111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18215]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 15-158; DA 15-784]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on 
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video 
programming. This document solicits data, information, and comment on 
the status of competition in

[[Page 44107]]

the market for the delivery of video programming for the Commission's 
Seventeenth Report (17th Report). The 17th Report will provide updated 
information and metrics regarding the video marketplace in 2014. 
Comments and data submitted in response to this document in conjunction 
with publicly available information and filings submitted in relevant 
Commission proceedings will be used for the report to Congress.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments, on or before August 21, 
2015, and reply comments on or before September 21, 2015.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
document, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market 
for Delivery of Video Programming. The complete text of the document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

    1. This Public Notice (Notice) solicits data, information, and 
comment on the state of competition in the delivery of video 
programming for the Commission's Seventeenth Report (17th Report). We 
seek to update the information and metrics provided in the Sixteenth 
Report (16th Report) and report on the state of competition in the 
video marketplace in 2014.
    2. Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) amended the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act) and directed the 
Commission to establish regulations for the purpose of increasing 
competition and diversity in multichannel video programming 
distribution, increasing the availability of satellite delivered 
programming, and spurring the development of communications 
technologies. To measure progress toward these goals, Congress required 
the Commission to report annually on ``the status of competition in the 
market for the delivery of video programming.''
    3. In 1992, when Congress first required the Commission to report 
on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming, most consumers had the limited choice of receiving over-
the-air broadcast television stations or subscribing to the video 
services their local cable company offered. From the consumer 
perspective, head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming 
distribution (MVPD) began in 1994 with the introduction of direct 
broadcast satellite (DBS) video services. In 2005 an additional 
competitive alternative for MVPD services became available to consumers 
when telephone companies began offering video services in some areas 
cable operators already served. More recently, most consumers have 
additional alternatives for the delivery of video programming from 
online video distributors' (OVDs) offerings of video content over the 
Internet.

Scope of the Report

    4. In the 17th Report, we expect to continue using the analytical 
framework used in the 16th Report. Under this framework, we categorize 
entities that deliver video programming in one of three groups--MVPDs, 
broadcast television stations, or OVDs. We also plan to examine 
consumer premises equipment that enables consumers to view programming 
on their television sets and on other residential or mobile devices 
(e.g., smartphones and tablets). In addition, we plan to discuss the 
deployment of new technologies and services, as well as innovation and 
investment in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.

Analytic Framework

    5. We categorize entities that deliver video programming into one 
of three groups: MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. Within 
each of the three groups, we describe the group's:
     Providers, which may include the number, size, and 
footprint of the entities in the group, horizontal and/or vertical 
concentration, regulatory and market conditions affecting entry, and 
any recent entry or exit from the group;
     Business models and competitive strategies, which may 
include the technologies entities employ to deliver programing, pricing 
plans, and product and service differences; and
     Selected Operating and Financial Statistics, which may 
include statistics related to the number of subscribers or viewers, 
revenue, and other financial indicators.
    6. In the 17th Report, we plan to report on a calendar year-end 
basis. We request data as of year-end 2014 (i.e., December 31, 2014).

I. Providers of Delivered Video Programming

Multichannel Video Programming Distributors

1. MVPD Providers
    7. The vast majority of MVPD subscribers rely on cable, DBS, or 
telephone MVPDs to provide their video services and this report will 
focus on these entities. For cable, DBS, and telephone MVPDs, we seek 
data on the number of providers, the number of homes passed, the number 
of subscribers for delivered video programming, the number of linear 
channels and amount of non-linear programming offered, and the ability 
of subscribers to watch programming on multiple devices both inside and 
outside the home. Are there differences in the number and types of 
MVPDs between rural and urban areas?
    8. We request updated information on the number of markets where 
DBS operators provide local-into-local broadcast service. With respect 
to non-contiguous states and U.S. territories, do DBS MVPDs offer the 
same video packages at the same prices as they offer in the 48 
contiguous states? Do subscribers need different or additional 
equipment to receive DBS MVPD services?
    9. Horizontal Concentration. In the 16th Report, we estimated the 
number of housing units nationwide with access to two, three, and four 
or more MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on this measure 
of horizontal concentration and on any other measure proposed by 
commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between 
the number of MVPDs available to a consumer and competition.
    10. Vertical Integration. In the 16th Report, we identified the 
national video programming networks, regional video programming 
networks, and regional sports networks affiliated with one or more 
MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on these categories of 
vertical integration and on any other categories proposed by 
commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between 
vertical integration and competition.
    11. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. 
Regulations and market conditions affect competition in the marketplace 
for the delivery of video programming. We seek data, information, and 
comment on the impact of the Communications Act and Commission rules on 
competition, innovation and investment. We recognize that the 
regulations applicable to cable operators may differ from the

[[Page 44108]]

regulations applicable to DBS systems and telephone MVPDs. How do 
regulatory disparities affect competition? What specific actions could 
the Commission take to facilitate competition in the marketplace for 
the delivery of video programming?
    12. We seek comment on the impact of marketplace conditions on MVPD 
competition. We also request data, information, and comment regarding 
the entry and exit of MVPDs in 2014. We are specifically interested in 
entry that increases the number of MVPDs available to consumers and 
exit that reduces the number of MVPDs available to consumers.
2. MVPD Business Models and Competitive Strategies
    13. MVPDs may choose from a variety of business models and 
competitive strategies to attract and retain subscribers and viewers. 
We seek descriptions of MVPD business models and competitive strategies 
in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. How do MVPDs 
attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers? How do MVPDs 
distinguish their video services from their closest competitors? Do 
bundles of video, Internet, and voice services help attract and retain 
video subscribers? Do cable and telephone MVPDs offering bundles over 
wireline facilities with two-way capability have competitive advantages 
over DBS MVPDs offering video using satellites with one-way capability 
and Internet and phone services using cooperative arrangements with 
other entities? Is there a trend to unbundle or offer smaller, less 
expensive video packages? Some MVPDs are now offering skinny bundles 
that include Internet and video packages with a relatively small number 
of video channels. Are skinny bundles attracting cord cutters 
(households that have cancelled MVPD service) and cord nevers 
(households that have never had MVPD service) or helping to retain 
existing subscribers that may have been thinking about cutting the 
cord?
    14. Do some MVPDs, such as those of a certain size, have a 
competitive advantage in the marketplace for the delivery of video 
programming? Do some MVPDs pay lower prices for video programming? Do 
the competitive strategies of certain MVPDs include arrangements with 
content providers that make it more difficult for competitors to 
acquire programming on reasonable terms? To the extent that any of 
these answers is yes, please describe the characteristics of such 
MVPDs.
    15. Have vertically integrated MVPDs (i.e., MVPDs with ownership 
interest in video programming) made it more difficult for competitors 
to acquire programming by restricting access or raising prices? What is 
the impact of rising programming prices and rising retransmission 
consent fees on MVPD business models and competitive strategies?
    16. To enhance their competitive position in the marketplace for 
the delivery of video programming, MVPDs have deployed TV Everywhere, 
which allows MVPD subscribers to access both linear and video-on-demand 
(VOD) programs on a variety of in-home and mobile Internet-connected 
devices. In addition to TV Everywhere, which requires an MVPD 
subscription, some MVPDs are offering online video packages, which do 
not require an MVPD subscription, to attract cord cutters and cord 
nevers. We request comment on the competitive strategies of MVPDs 
launching online video services separate from their MVPD services.
    17. Some MVPDs have added various video-related fees to monthly 
billing statements. Such fees include, for instance, a broadcast fee to 
partially recoup retransmission consent fees charged by local broadcast 
stations and a sports fee to defray the cost of sports programming. We 
seek comment on the competitive strategy associated with adding video-
related fees as opposed to raising monthly subscription prices. Do such 
fees enable MVPDs to better attract new subscribers and retain existing 
subscribers?
    18. We request information on MVPDs' deployment of new 
technologies, including transitioning to all-digital distribution, 
adding Internet Protocol (IP)-delivered video programming, deploying 
more efficient video encoding technologies (e.g., MPEG-4 and High 
Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)), developing and testing enhanced 
transmission technologies (e.g., DOCSIS 3.1) and expanding 3-D and 4K 
services.
    19. We are interested in the extent of substitution between MVPD 
services, OVD services, and over-the-air broadcast television. We 
realize that substitution represents only part of the competitive 
interaction between MVPDs, broadcasters, and OVDs. Consumers may also 
use OVDs and broadcast stations to supplement (i.e., add to) and 
complement (i.e., combine with) their MVPD services. Our primary focus, 
however, is substitution. What video services do MVPDs offer that OVDs 
and broadcast stations do not? To what extent do the prices of MVPD 
services lead households to substitute OVD services and over-the-air 
broadcast services for MVPD services? When marketing their video 
services, have MVPDs encouraged households to switch away from OVD 
services and over-the-air broadcast services and rely more on MVPD 
services? What actions have MVPDs taken in response to actual or 
potential competition from OVDs and broadcast stations?
3. Selected MVPD Operating and Financial Statistics
    20. In the 16th Report, we provided the following MVPD operating 
and financial statistics: Video packages and pricing, number of video 
subscribers and penetration rates, and revenue. We expect to report 
comparable statistics in the 17th Report. We seek data on the number of 
housing units passed nationally, the number of subscribers, and the 
penetration rates. We seek data on MVPD subscriber losses and the 
factors leading to those losses, especially competition from OVDs. We 
request data on MVPD revenue. We recognize that cable and telephone 
MVPDs also provide Internet and phone services using their own 
facilities. Our focus, however, is the market for the delivery of video 
programming, and commenters submitting data for operating and financial 
statistics should separate video from non-video services.

Broadcast Television Stations

4. Broadcast Television Station Providers
    21. Providers of broadcast television services include both 
individual and group-owned stations that hold licenses to broadcast 
video programming to consumers. Broadcast stations deliver video 
programming over the air to consumers. How many households view 
broadcast programming over-the-air exclusively, and how many households 
receive such programming over the air on some televisions not connected 
to an MVPD service? How many households use a combination of over-the-
air stations and OVD services?
    22. Horizontal Concentration. Commission rules limit the number of 
broadcast television stations an entity can own in a DMA, depending on 
the number of independently owned stations in the market. Does group 
ownership strengthen the competitive position of broadcast stations in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming, either through 
increased advertising revenue or lower prices for video programming? 
Does it affect the prices, terms or conditions of carriage agreements 
with MVPDs? What is the impact of group ownership on the

[[Page 44109]]

competitive position of independently-owned stations?
    23. Vertical Integration. Does vertical integration strengthen a 
broadcast station's ability to negotiate carriage rights with MVPDs? 
Are vertically integrated broadcast stations stronger competitors in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming?
    24. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. The 
Commission's spectrum allocation and licensing policies affect 
broadcast television by limiting the number of stations located in a 
given geographic area. Commission rules limit the number of broadcast 
television stations an entity can own in a DMA as well as limit the 
aggregate national audience reach of commonly owned broadcast 
television stations. The Commission's territorial exclusivity rule 
restricts the geographic area in which a television broadcast station 
may obtain exclusive rights to video programming. We seek data, 
information, and comment on the impact of these regulations, the impact 
of the upcoming incentive auction, and the potential impact of our 
recent Declaratory Ruling regarding foreign broadcast investment on 
competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.
5. Broadcast Television Station Business Models and Competitive 
Strategies
    25. What competitive strategies are broadcast television stations 
using to distinguish themselves from other broadcast television 
stations? What competitive strategies are broadcast stations using to 
strengthen their competitive position in the market for the delivery of 
video programming? We seek data, information, and comment on the use of 
multicast streams, the amount of HD programming, mobile TV, and 
broadcast station Web sites. We seek comment regarding the ability of 
broadcast stations to secure MVPD carriage of their multicast signals 
and the impact of such carriage on the financial viability of their 
multicast operations. What effect does the ability to offer HD or ultra 
HD programming have on a broadcast station's ability to compete in the 
marketplace for the delivery of video programming? What progress has 
been made regarding mobile TV? In what ways are broadcasters using 
their stations' Web sites to strengthen their competitive position in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming?
    26. To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as 
providing unique services, such as local news, sports, weather and 
emergency alerts, to increase viewership? Do joint sales agreements 
(JSAs), local marketing agreements (LMAs), and shared services 
agreements (SSAs) affect the provision of local news offered by 
broadcast stations, and if so, how? Has online delivery contributed to 
increased investment in broadcast station local news and information 
programming?
    27. For many years, broadcast television networks used their local 
broadcast television-affiliated stations as their primary distributor 
of programming. Broadcast network programming, however, has become 
increasingly available from OVDs. In addition, broadcast networks are 
increasingly providing OVD services themselves to strengthen their 
competitive position in the market for delivery of video programming. 
Are other broadcast networks planning to offer subscription VOD and 
live programming, either as standalone OVD services or through joint 
ventures like Hulu and Hulu Plus? How successful are their subscription 
offerings, relative to their free offerings? When networks offer their 
programming as OVDs, how does this impact the financial well-being of 
affiliated stations that previously offered such programming to the 
public on an exclusive basis? Have local broadcast stations adapted 
their business models and competitive strategies in ways that indicate 
that they view MVPDs and OVDs as competitors? We seek comment generally 
on the effect of the broadcast networks' increasing provision of OVD 
service. In particular, what effect is this having on the relationship 
between broadcast networks and their affiliates? What competitive 
strategies are broadcast stations using to remain important to 
broadcast networks for program distribution?
    28. We are interested in the extent of substitution between over-
the-air services and MVPDs and between over-the-air services and OVDs. 
Do broadcast stations compare their video services to MVPD and OVD 
services? To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as 
substitutes for MVPD and OVD services? What specific marketing 
activities have broadcast stations used, if any, to encourage 
households to switch away from MVPDs and OVDs and rely more on over-
the-air services?
6. Selected Broadcast Television Station Operating and Financial 
Statistics
    29. In the 16th Report, we provided the following broadcast 
television station operating and financial statistics: Audiences; 
revenue from advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent 
fees, ancillary services, and online services; cash flow estimates and 
pre-tax profits; and capital expenditures. We seek data on the 
viewership of broadcast television stations from over-the-air 
reception, MVPD carriage, online viewing, and mobile TV. Has 
multicasting, online viewing, and/or mobile TV increased broadcast 
station viewership in the marketplace for the delivery of video 
programming? We seek data on broadcast television station revenues from 
advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent fees, 
ancillary services, and subscription fees from OVD offerings. We seek 
information and comment on the impact, if any, of JSAs, LMAs and SSAs 
on retransmission consent negotiations and fees.

Online Video Distributors

7. OVD Providers
    30. In the video marketplace, Internet-delivered video services are 
expanding and evolving quickly and significantly. Linear programming is 
becoming increasingly available. And new OVD service offerings are 
provided by both new entrants to the marketplace and existing industry 
participants developing new products. The Commission has in the past 
defined an ``OVD'' as any entity that offers video content by means of 
the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP)-based transmission path 
provided by a person or entity other than the OVD. Pursuant to the 
definition, an OVD has not included an MVPD inside its MVPD footprint 
or an MVPD to the extent it is offering online video content as a 
component of an MVPD subscription to customers whose homes are inside 
its MVPD footprint. As these developments continue apace, the 
Commission may wish to consider modifying the definition of ``OVD'' it 
has used in previous Reports to better reflect the evolving 
marketplace. For instance, some traditional MVPDs are offering or 
considering offering Internet-delivered services that would not be 
restricted to subscribers to their traditional MVPD services. Moreover, 
the Commission has opened a proceeding to consider whether an Internet-
delivered service that offers linear programming, as DISH's Sling TV, 
for example, does, should be considered to be an MVPD as that term is 
defined in the Communications Act. We will want to consider any revised 
definition of OVD in coordination with any action the Commission may 
take in the MVPD proceeding. In the meantime, for purposes of the 17th 
Report we seek data on services that fall within our previous 
definition of OVD and on other

[[Page 44110]]

Internet-delivered services that are available or are becoming 
available that should be considered in an assessment of the state of 
competition in this segment of the marketplace.
    31. In the 16th Report, we categorized and discussed OVD providers 
in terms of the types of services offered (e.g., subscription, 
advertising-supported, rental, electronic sell-through, and sports). We 
expect to follow a similar approach in the 17th Report. Because OVDs 
are relatively new entities in the video marketplace, data regarding 
this category tends to be more dispersed and less standardized and 
reliable, relative to more long-established data for the MVPD and 
broadcast station categories. We seek comment on the most comprehensive 
and most reliable data sources for OVDs, individually and as a group.
    32. Horizontal Concentration. Because OVDs may be accessed wherever 
consumers can connect to high-speed Internet, we assume that OVDs 
compete with one another in a national marketplace. In the 16th Report, 
we noted the difficulty of measuring OVD market shares as many OVDs are 
subsidiaries or divisions of companies that do not report data 
separately for OVD services. We seek comment on an appropriate measure 
of OVD horizontal concentration.
    33. Vertical Integration. Some OVDs are vertically integrated with 
MVPDs, video content creators and aggregators, and manufacturers of 
devices used for viewing video programming. In addition, some OVDs 
provide video storage services and operate content delivery networks 
(CDNs). Do these vertical relationships strengthen the competitive 
positions of OVDs? We seek data, information, and comment regarding OVD 
vertical integration and its impact on competition in the marketplace 
for the delivery of video programming.
    34. Regulatory and Marketplace Conditions Affecting Competition. We 
request data, information, and comment on regulatory and marketplace 
conditions that affect OVDs' ability to compete for the delivery of 
video programming. OVD regulations include possible reclassification of 
some OVDs as MVPDs, Open Internet rules, and IP closed captioning 
requirements for video programming. OVDs depend on ISPs to deliver 
video content to consumers. To what extent does this dependence impact 
the ability of OVDs to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming? Are ISPs providing consumers with sufficient 
Internet speeds to view OVD programming whenever, and wherever, and on 
whatever devices they choose? Do ISPs that are also MVPDs have 
incentives to disadvantage OVDs? What specific actions are OVDs and 
ISPs taking individually or cooperatively to improve video streaming 
quality and facilitate the viewing of video online? Do OVDs encounter 
unique issues (relative to MVPDs and broadcast stations) when acquiring 
content rights?
8. OVD Business Models and Competitive Strategies
    35. We seek information on the business models and competitive 
strategies OVDs use to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming. How do OVDs differentiate their services and attract 
consumers? What are the key differences in terms of the video service 
offerings, picture quality, original programming, distinctive content, 
linear programming, video streaming quality, enabling viewing on 
multiple devices, pricing, and revenue sources?
    36. We are interested in the extent of substitution between OVDs 
and MVPDs and between OVDs and over-the-air broadcast services. We seek 
data, information, and comment on the extent of substitution between 
OVDs and MVPDs and between OVDs and over-the-air broadcast services. Do 
OVDs compare their video services to MVPD and over-the-air services? To 
what extent do OVDs market themselves as substitutes for MVPD and over-
the-air services? What specific marketing activities have OVDs used, if 
any, to encourage households to rely more on the video services of OVDs 
than on MVPDs and over-the-air broadcast stations? Substitution 
involves both the video content offered and relative prices. What 
effects have the prices charged by OVDs had on substitution?
9. Selected OVD Operating and Financial Statistics
    37. In the 16th Report, we provided the following OVD operating and 
financial statistics: Usage, viewership, subscribership, revenue, 
investment, and profitability. In the 17th Report, we again plan to 
report on these operating and financial statistics. We seek information 
concerning the amount and type of video programming OVDs offer (e.g., 
television programs, movies, and sports). We seek data on the number of 
consumers who view OVD programming, the number of programs they view, 
and the amount of time they spend viewing. We seek data on OVD revenue 
from subscriptions, advertising, and fees for video rentals and sales.

II. Consumer Premises Equipment

    38. Consumer premises equipment (CPE) refers to devices that enable 
consumers to watch video content delivered by MVPDs, broadcast 
stations, and OVDs. We seek comment on the major developments in CPE 
devices that affect competition in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming. What new CPE products have been introduced? What are 
the major technological developments in CPE?
    39. While consumers have traditionally leased the set-top boxes 
necessary for viewing MVPD programming, they purchase most other CPE 
devices. We seek comment on the competitive strategies associated with 
leasing set-top boxes. We also seek comment on the effects of set top 
box leasing on innovation and investment in CPE devices. To what extent 
do the set-top boxes provided by MVPDs limit the ability to access 
programming offered by OVDs? What are the consumer benefits and costs 
of leased set-top boxes? What alternatives do MVPD subscribers have to 
leasing a set-top box? We seek information and comment on the 
availability of retail alternatives to leased set-top boxes. Are 
consumers able to receive the full suite of an MVPD's video services 
via these retail alternatives?

III. Consumer Behavior

    40. We request data on the number or percentage of households that 
have HD televisions, ultra HD televisions, Internet-connected 
televisions, DVRs, and mobile video devices (e.g., laptops, tablets, 
and smartphones). We also seek data on trends that compare consumer 
viewing of linear video programming with time-shifted programming. To 
what extent are consumers dropping or limiting MVPD services in favor 
of OVDs or a combination of OVDs and over-the-air television? Do some 
consumers view OVD services separately, or in conjunction with over-
the-air broadcast television services as a potential substitute for 
some or all MVPD services? Do consumers who do not subscribe to MVPD 
services share common characteristics? We seek comment on the 
relationship between consumer behavior (e.g., binge viewing, time 
shifting, viewing outside the home, viewing on multiple devices) and 
the business models and competitive strategies of entities in the 
marketplace for the delivery of video programming.
    41. MVPD, OVDs, and broadcast stations use television, newspapers, 
mailings, and Web sites to reach potential consumers and provide 
information about video services and

[[Page 44111]]

prices. Do consumers have sufficient information to easily compare 
video services and price offerings? What do consumers value most when 
choosing between and among MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs? What 
reasons do consumers give for switching from MVPD services to reliance 
on OVDs and/or over-the-air services (e.g., price, programming)?

IV. Additional Issues

    42. With this Notice, we seek data, information, and comment on a 
wide range of issues in order to report on the status of competition in 
the market for the delivery of video programming. To make the 17th 
Report as useful as possible, are there other issues, additional 
information, or data we should include in the report? In the interest 
of streamlining the report, we request comment on issues, information, 
and data that could be modified or eliminated without impairing the 
value of the 17th Report to Congress on the status of competition in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.

Procedural Matters

    43. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure 
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.204(b)(1).
    44. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All 
filings concerning matters referenced in this document should refer to 
MB Docket No. 12-203.
    45. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    46. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    47. For further information about this Notice, please contact Dan 
Bring at (202) 418-2164, danny.bring@fcc.gov, or Marcia Glauberman at 
(202) 418-7046, marcia.glauberman@fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2015-18215 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.