[Federal Register: September 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 53192-53197]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07se05-62]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket 05-255; FCC 05-155]
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 information from the public for use
in preparing this year's competition report that is to be submitted to
Congress in December 2005. Comments and data submitted by parties will
be used in conjunction with publicly available information and filings
submitted in relevant Commission proceedings to assess the extent of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 19, 2005, and reply
comments are due on or before October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-255,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or telephone: 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: Timothy May, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
1463, TTY (202) 418-7172 or by e-mail at Timothy.May@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in MB Docket No. 05-255, FCC 05-155, adopted
August 9, 2005, and released August 12, 2005. The complete text of this
NOI is available for inspection and copying Monday during regular
business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257,
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is also available on the Commission's Internet Site at http://www.fcc.gov.
Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202)
418-7365. The complete text of the NOI may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Company and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimilie (202) 863-2898, or by e-mail
fcc@bcpiweb.com, or via its Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
directs the Commission to report to Congress annually on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. This
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits data and information on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming for the
Commission's twelfth annual report (2005 Report). We request
information, comments, and analyses that will allow us to evaluate the
status of competition in the video marketplace, changes in the market
since the 2004 Report, prospects for new entrants to that market,
factors that have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect
these factors are having on consumers' access to video programming.
Where possible and relevant, we request data as of June 30, 2005.
2. We encourage thorough and substantive submissions from industry
participants and state and local regulators with the best knowledge of
the questions and issues raised. We will augment reported information
with submissions in other Commission proceedings. In the past, we have
had to rely on data from publicly available sources when information
has not been provided directly by industry participants. The Commission
intends to seek out publicly available information relevant to this
inquiry.
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
3. In the NOI, we ask commenters to provide data on video
programming distributors, including cable systems, direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) services, large home satellite or C-Band dish (C-Band)
providers, broadband service providers (BSPs), private cable or
satellite master antenna television (PCO) systems, open video systems
(OVS), multichannel multipoint distribution or wireless cable systems
(wireless cable), local exchange carrier (LEC) systems,
[[Page 53193]]
utility-operated systems, and over-the-air broadcast television
stations. We seek information on video programming distributed on
videocassettes and DVDs through retail distribution outlets, over the
Internet and via Internet Protocol (IP) networks.
4. We seek information and statistical data for each type of
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), including the number
of homes passed by each wired technology; the number of homes capable
of receiving service via each wireless technology; the number of
subscribers and penetration rates for each service (e.g., basic cable
service, cable programming service tier or CPST, premium, or their
equivalents provided by non-cable MVPDs, pay-per-view, video-on-demand
(VOD)); channel capacities and the number, type, and identity of video
programming channels offered, the channel capacity required for such
offerings, and the available channel capacity of the system; prices
charged for various programming packages; cost of programming inputs;
industry and individual firm financial information, such as total
revenue and revenue by individual company segments or services, cash
flow, and expenditures; information on how video programming
distributors compare in terms of relative size and financial resources;
data that measure the audience reach of video programming distribution
firms as well as relative control over the video distribution market;
information on video distributor expansion into new markets such as
local telephony and high-speed-Internet access, the percentage of
subscribers taking these services, and the competitive advantages of
offering these services; and information on new technologies being
considered, tested, or deployed by MVPDs for video, voice and data.
5. We are interested in data and information on the number of homes
capable of choosing among MVPD services. How many households can
receive service from one or more providers (e.g., DBS, wireless cable,
PCO) as well as an incumbent cable provider? We seek comments and data
on the number of consumers with access to wireline overbuilders, such
as the number of homes passed by more than one wireline MVPD, and why
the availability is low relative to wireless alternatives. As part of
this request, we want to identify markets where wireline competition
exists today, where entry is likely in the near future, and where
wireline competition once existed but failed.
6. We seek comments and information on the consequences for
consumers of competition in the market for video programming. Has
competition among MVPD services resulted in lower prices, more
programming choices, better quality of service, more advanced services
(both video and non-video) or other consumer benefits? Is there
evidence of price competition?
7. We also ask whether the effect of competition varies depending
upon the nature of the competitors. In particular, we seek data on
relative prices in order to evaluate substitution between MVPD
technologies (i.e., what are the prices of similar cable, DBS, LEC, OVS
and BSP services). Also, how should we compare bundled service
packages, such as video, voice, and high-speed data, among MVPDs? Are
there barriers to entry in the market for the delivery of video
programming, including regulations or statutory provisions that prevent
new entrants from promptly deploying their networks and offering
consumers new video service options?
8. We seek information on existing, planned, and terminated or
merged programming services to assess the changes over the past year in
the amount and type of video programming that is available to
consumers. We request detailed information about programming networks
including ownership, the type of programming services (e.g., national,
regional, local) and the genre of programming services (e.g., sports,
news, children's, general entertainment, and foreign language). We also
seek information on the nature of trends in the status of programming
networks' vertical integration with cable operators and with other
media interests. We seek comment on programmers' access to MVPDs and
their ability to gain carriage. We request comment on the effectiveness
of our program access, program carriage, and channel occupancy rules.
9. We request information on children's, locally-originated, and
local news and community affairs programming is distributed to
consumers. To what extent is programming offered in languages other
than English, nationally and locally? We seek comment on cable
operators' public, educational, and governmental access and leased
access channel. We ask for information on the programming provided by
DBS operators in compliance with their public interest obligation. We
also seek information on how video programming distributors package and
market their programming. To what extent do MVPDs offer or plan to
offer themed tiers, such as sports tiers or family tiers.
10. With respect to access to programming by persons with
disabilities, we invite commenters to provide information regarding the
accessibility of closed captioning and video description. We seek
information on the quality, accuracy, placement, technology, and any
instances of missing or delayed captions, and the amount of digital
programming that contains closed captions translated from analog closed
captions. We further seek information on the availability of video
description, currently provided by programmers on a voluntary basis.
11. We seek comment on the availability and compatibility of
customer premises equipment used to provide video programming and other
services. We request information on the number of households that
currently have analog television sets and the number of those
television sets that are connected to an external set-top box that
allows for the provision of various MVPD services. We request
information on the number of households that have digital television
sets and the number of those sets that are connected to set-top boxes
for each type of service provided by such boxes.
12. We seek information on the retail availability of navigation
devices to consumers, including the number of such devices that have
been sold and the obstacles to equipment manufacturers and others for
obtaining approval to attach devices to MVPD systems. We request
information on the development and deployment of electronic programming
guides (EPGs), including the number and type of EPGs that video
programming distributors offer or plan to offer to their subscribers,
and the technologies used to distribute EPGs.
13. We continue to monitor competition issues specific to video
programming distribution in rural and smaller markets. How does
competition differ between rural and smaller markets and larger and
urban areas? We are particularly interested in information on the
experiences of independent cable system operators (i.e., cable systems
not affiliated with the largest MSOs) and the degree of upgrades of
cable systems in rural and smaller markets. We request information on
the programming offered in rural and smaller markets and any
differences between these offerings and those available in larger
markets. Similarly, we seek comment on any factors that are unique to
competition in multiple dwelling units (MDUs).
Cable Television Service
14. For the 2005 Report, we seek updated information on the
performance of the cable television industry. We request information
[[Page 53194]]
regarding the investments that cable operators have made to upgrade
their plant and equipment to increase channel capacity, create digital
services, or offer advanced services. We request information on the
deployment of various types and technical methods to increase capacity.
15. For individual cable multiple system operators (MSOs), we
request information on the number of systems upgraded, the channel
capacity (as measured in terms of analog channel capacity) resulting
from upgrades, the digital channel capacity resulting from upgrades
(including the digital to analog compression ratio used), the number of
systems with digital tiers, the number of households where digital
cable services are available, and the number of subscribers to these
digital services. To what extent is the new capacity used for video
services as opposed to non-video services? We seek information on cable
operators who have launched or plan to launch digital simulcasts of
their analog channel lineups on one or more of their systems. How would
the structure and price of service tiers change if a system becomes
all-digital?
16. We seek information on mergers and other cable system
transactions during the past year, including the names of the buyer and
seller, the date of the transaction, type of transaction (i.e., sale,
swap, or trade), name and location of the system, homes passed and
number of subscribers, and the price. We continue to monitor the
practice of clustering, whereby operators concentrate their operations
in specific geographic areas and request data regarding the effect of
clustering on competition in the video programming distribution market.
What effect does clustering have on economies of scale and scope vis-a-
vis competition with overbuilders?
17. We seek comment on whether cable operators are changing the way
they package programming. Are cable operators restructuring their tiers
by shifting programming from the basic service tier (BST) to cable
programming service tier (CPST) or from these tiers to digital or
premium tiers? To what extent do cable operators offer multiple CPSTs
or digital tiers? To what extent do they offer themed tiers, such as a
family tier? Where cable operators provide digital tiers, are they
creating additional digital programming genre packages (e.g., family,
sports, and lifestyle theme tiers) that require an additional
subscription fee?
18. Commenters are asked to provide information regarding the
advanced service offerings by cable operators, such as video-on-demand,
digital video recorders (DVRs), cable modem service, telephony,
including Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and Open Cable
Applications Platform (OCAP) applications. We seek information on cable
operators that currently provide or plan to provide video-on-demand
these services.
19. We also request information regarding the development of
specifications for interoperable set-top boxes, i.e., set-top boxes
that can be moved from one cable franchise area to another and function
with any given cable providers local system in CableLab's OpenCable
Process? What percentage of equipment is compatible with the OpenCable
standards? We also seek information on the availability of CableCARDs,
the removable security module which, when inserted in an OpenCable
certified device enables the delivery of digital video programming and
other services. We further ask for information on how many products are
available with built-in ``plug and play'' functionality for one way
digital cable service.
20. Section 612(g) of the Communications Act provides that at such
time as cable systems with 36 or more activated channels are available
to 70 percent of households within the United States and are subscribed
to by 70 percent of those households, the Commission may promulgate any
additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources.
We request comment and supporting data that would be useful for
determining an accurate homes passed statistic, including the number of
homes passed by systems with 36 or more activated channels. We further
seek information regarding how many homes passed by systems with 36 or
more channels actually subscribe to cable service.
Direct-to-Home Satellite Services
21. We seek information and data that explain the factors
contributing to DBS' growth in the video programming market and that
can help us assess whether those characteristics will continue to
position DBS as cable's principal competitor. We seek information on
the geographic characteristics of direct to home (DTH) subscribers. Are
they more likely to reside in urban areas than rural areas, or vice
versa? To what extent do DBS subscribers reside in areas not passed by
cable systems? Although DBS is a national service, we continue to
monitor technical limitations, such as line of sight, which impede the
availability of DBS. How many or what percentage of households cannot
receive DBS service because they are not within the line of sight of
the satellite signal? We request any consumer surveys identifying
differences between consumers who choose to subscribe to DBS or C-Band,
rather than choose cable or another video programming distributor. What
percentage of new DBS subscribers are former cable subscribers?
22. We request information regarding the investments that DBS
operators have made or plan to make to augment their satellite fleets
and equipment to increase channel capacity or offer advanced services.
We request information on current channel capacity and the deployment
of various technical methods to increase capacity. We request data on
prices for DBS programming packages and equipment. What is the typical
cost of DBS equipment and installation?
23. We request updated information on the number of markets where
local-into-local television service is offered, or will be offered in
the near future, pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
of 1999 (SHVIA), including the number and affiliation of the stations
carried. What is the cost to consumers of local-into-local broadcast
channels? What percentage of DBS subscribers subscribe to cable in
order to receive local broadcast signals? On December 8, 2004, the
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004
(SHVERA) was enacted, which added new provisions to the Communications
and Copyright Acts pertaining to the retransmission by DBS of distant
broadcast signals. We request comment on the potential impact of SHVERA
on DBS' ability to compete in the MVPD marketplace.
24. With respect to large home satellite dish or C-Band service
providers, our 2004 Report found a continued decline in subscriber
activations, caused principally by C-Band subscribers switching to DBS
because of the smaller, less expensive, and easier to use equipment. We
seek information about programming and program packages that remain
available for C-Band subscribers.
25. With respect to satellite delivered advanced services, we seek
information on the status of current and future plans regarding both
satellite-delivered high-speed Internet access with a telephone return
path as well as two-way satellite delivered high-speed Internet access
services offered by the satellite industry, including fixed satellite
systems (FSS), DTH and DBS providers. We request information on set-top
boxes with DVR capabilities, including number of subscribers purchasing
or leasing this equipment. We also seek information on
[[Page 53195]]
the rollout of HD programming to DBS subscribers.
26. In 2002, the Commission established the Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12 GHz
band), which is allocated to DBS on a primary basis. MVDDS spectrum may
be used to facilitate the delivery of new video and broadband
communications services, such as local television programming and high-
speed Internet access. We invite comment on the status of MVDDS
equipment and deployment.
Local Exchange Carriers
27. We have previously reported that incumbent LEC entry into the
MVPD industry remains limited, but that recent developments indicated
renewed incumbent LEC interest in providing video programming services.
What is the current extent of deployment of these broadband networks?
What are LECs' future deployment plans?
28. We seek information generally regarding incumbent LECs that
provide video programming services. Are there any regulatory or
statutory impediments to LEC entry in the video service market? To what
extent are LECs operating cable systems? To what extent are LECs
overbuilding incumbent cable systems' service areas? Do LECs that
operate cable systems face special hurdles to providing video service?
Are the services offered by fiber to the premises (FTTP) and fiber to
the node (FTTN) comparable to those available via cable or satellite?
We request comment on the status of planned incumbent LEC IP video and
Internet Protocol television (IPTV) deployments.
Broadband Service Providers and Open Video System Operators
29. We request information regarding the provision of video, voice,
and data services by Broadband Service Providers (BSPs), including
municipal, independent and competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC)
overbuilders, and open video system (OVS) operators. Are video
programming services offered in combination with telephone and high-
speed Internet access services and, if so, how are rates affected by
the packaging of multiple services? How many, or what percentage of,
BSP and OVS subscribers purchase video service alone, video and
telephony, video and high-speed Internet access services, or all three
services? We further seek comment on the current and potential effect
of BSPs and OVS providers on the status of video competition. We seek
comment on the characteristics that facilitate BSP competitiveness
(e.g., number of subscribers, homes passed, geographical reach,
demographics, and business models).
Electric and Gas Utilities
30. We seek information regarding utility companies that provide
video services, including the extent to which video programming
services are being bundled with telephone, high-speed Internet access,
or other utility services? How does the ability to offer bundled
services affect the relative competitive position of these utilities?
In addition, several utility companies have been experimenting with
``broadband-over-powerline'' (BPL) technology, which uses power lines
to carry high-speed data signals the ``last mile'' to the home. We seek
comment on the extent to which BPL technology can or is being used to
provide video programming services, either separately or together with
voice and data services.
Internet Video
31. We seek updated information as to the quality of readily
available streaming and downloadable video. We are particularly
interested in what criteria should be used to compare picture quality
of Internet-based video to video programming distributed by traditional
broadcasters and MVPDs. We continue to seek information on the types of
video services currently being offered over the Internet both in real-
time and downloadable format. We also seek projections of whether and,
if so, when Internet video will become a viable competitor in the
market for the delivery of video programming.
32. With respect to IPTV, when used for video programming delivery
by cable and other MVPDs, should IPTV be considered a separate service,
or simply a different means of video programming transmission? We
invite comment on whether and to what extent MVPDs are delivering IPTV
over their broadband Internet connections, and information on the types
of IPTV services that are planned or being deployed. We seek
projections of whether and when IPTV will have a competitive impact on
the market for the delivery of video programming. We also seek comment
on what Digital Rights Management (DRM) and other security technologies
IPTV providers use, and the effect of the choice of DRM on competition.
In addition, we request comment on any other competitive or regulatory
issues raised by the provision of IPTV over broadband Internet
connections.
Broadcast Television Service
33. We seek data and comment on the role of broadcast television in
the market for the delivery of video programming. We seek data on
broadcast network and station audience shares, especially relative to
those of non-broadcast programming services. We also request data on
broadcast advertising revenue. To what extent has cable gained local,
regional, or national advertising market share from broadcast
television? To what extent are cable television and DBS retransmission
consent negotiations providing broadcasters with an additional revenue
source, either through direct compensation or through indirect benefits
such as, for example, contracts for the carriage of affiliated
programming? If the compensation is not direct, how is it accounted
for? What forms of compensation are broadcasters receiving for
retransmission consent?
34. We invite comment and seek data on a broad range of issues
relating to the digital television (DTV) transition. We are most
interested in the ways in which broadcast television stations'
deployment of digital television service, and the DTV programming
provided by MVPDs, impact competition in the video programming
distribution market. Is the growth of DTV broadcasting making broadcast
television a substitute for, or competitor of, MVPDs? We invite comment
on current and projected levels of consumer access to and use of DTV,
including over-the-air availability of DTV service and carriage of DTV
programming by MVPDs, including satellite systems as well as cable
systems. We also invite comment on programming content that is
available in DTV formats, equipment that is used to receive DTV
programming, and consumer education efforts.
35. We request information on how consumers receive television
programming, and how many of these households have the capability to
receive DTV programming. We request data on the number or percentage of
households relying solely on over-the-air broadcast television for
programming, as well as the number of MVPD households that rely on
over-the-air reception for local broadcast service on one or more of
their television sets not connected to an MVPD, by type of MVPD
service. We specifically request information on the number of
households that are able to receive DTV and/or high definition
television (HDTV) programming either over the air or from an MVPD. We
also seek comments on how these subscriber numbers are expected to grow
over the next several years.
36. We seek information on the availability of over-the-air DTV
service to viewers. What portion of the
[[Page 53196]]
population has access to over-the-air DTV service? We request
information regarding the carriage of DTV programming by MVPDs and
plans to increase the amount of DTV programming carried. We request
information regarding the amount and type of DTV programming (e.g.,
network, local, syndicated) currently offered by broadcasters. Last
year, we reported on the efforts of several companies using broadcast
spectrum for subscription video distribution via DTV streams. We seek
updated information on the status of these efforts and other planned
uses of DTV spectrum. We seek information regarding the equipment
needed to receive DTV programming either over the air or from an MVPD.
Wireless Cable Systems
37. We recognize that wireless cable operators offer limited
competition to incumbent cable operators. Many licensees of the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS)
used by wireless cable operators to provide video service have chosen
to focus on the delivery of non-video broadband services, such as high
speed Internet service. We seek information on the factors that have
led wireless cable operators to move away from offering video services
over their platforms, including any concerning access to programming,
bandwidth considerations, local regulatory considerations, and bundled
service offerings.
Private Cable Operators
38. We request information on the types of services offered by
private cable operators (PCOs), also known as satellite master antenna
television (SMATV) operators. We seek information on the number of PCOs
in the United States, the geographic areas they serve, the
identification and size of PCO companies, the programming packages
offered, and the prices of such packages compared to those of incumbent
cable operators. In 2002, the Commission made PCOs eligible for CARS
licenses, an action intended to enhance opportunities for PCOs to
provide additional competition to incumbent cable operators. We seek
comments as to whether CARS licenses are being used by PCOs as
envisioned and whether the anticipated benefits are being achieved.
Home Video Sales and Rentals
39. We seek information regarding the home video sales and rental
market, including data on the number or percentage of households with
videocassette recorders and DVD players. We request information on the
amount of programming available in DVD and VHS formats, for sale and
rental, the cost of rentals, and how this compares with the cost of
pay-per-view, video-on-demand, or near video-on-demand programming
offered by MVPDs. We also seek information on Internet-based video
sales and rental services and the effect, if any, they have on video
distributors' service offerings, such as VOD and pay-per-view.
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers
40. We request information on the availability and deployment of
mobile television services. How many mobile telephone users have access
to and subscribe to video programming services? Are specialized
telephones or other devices required to receive these services? How
much do such services cost? In which markets are these services
available? Are any other providers planning to launch similar services
and is additional network capacity required to provide them? To what
extent should mobile telephone providers that offer video programming
be considered MVPDs? Although these services are just emerging, we seek
comment on what impact, if any, they have on competition in the MVPD
market.
Foreign Markets
41. We invite comment on the status of competition in foreign
markets for the delivery of video programming to provide insight into
the nature of competition in the United States and relative efficiency
of market structures and regulations within the United States. We seek
current information and case studies on video delivery in foreign
markets. Specifically, we seek information regarding the differences
between the United States and other markets in the distribution of
video programming, including developments in video over IP, the digital
television transition, and broadcast, cable and satellite competition.
What regulatory models are associated with increased levels of
competition in foreign markets?
Procedural Matters
42. Authority. This NOI is issued pursuant to authority contained
in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).
43. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR
1.1204(b)(1).
44. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on or before September 19, 2005, and reply comments on or
before October 3, 2005. Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[[Page 53197]]
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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17705 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P