[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6875-6882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket 07-269; FCC 07-207]
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 the next competition report that is to be submitted to
Congress. 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: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 27,
2009, and reply on or before March 27, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB 07-269, by any of
the following methods:
[[Page 6876]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/efcs/. 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: [email protected] or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Scherer, Media Bureau at (202)
418-2330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in MB Docket No. 07-269, FCC 07-207, adopted
November 27, 2007, and released January 16, 2009. The complete text of
this NOI is available for inspection and copying 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 the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). 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, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or by e-mail [email protected], 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 for the
Commission's 14th annual report. We request information, comments, and
analyses that will allow us to evaluate the status of competition in
the video marketplace, changes in the marketplace between 2006 and
2007, prospects for new entrants, factors that have facilitated or
impeded competition, and the effect these factors are having on
consumers' access to video programming.
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 to ensure the accuracy and usefulness
of this Report. 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 and will do so again if
necessary. Nevertheless, we are concerned that such publicly available
information may not be adequate, especially when various sources
provide inconsistent data.
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
3. We ask commenters to provide data on video programming
distributors, including cable systems; direct broadcast satellite (DBS)
services; large home satellite dish (C-Band) providers; broadband
service providers (BSPs); private cable operators (PCO), also called
satellite master antenna television systems; open video systems (OVS);
wireless cable systems using frequencies in the broadband radio and
educational broadband services; local exchange carrier (LEC) systems;
utility-operated systems; commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) and
other wireless providers; and over-the-air broadcast television
stations. In addition, we seek information on video programming
distributed over the Internet and via Internet Protocol (IP) networks.
We also seek information that will allow us to evaluate horizontal
concentration in the video marketplace, vertical integration between
programming distributors and programming services, and other issues
relating to the programming available to consumers. We request
information on technical issues, including equipment and emerging
services. We continue to seek comments regarding developments in
foreign markets, as they may contribute to our understanding of
domestic markets and provide insight into factors affecting video
competition. Where possible and relevant, we request data as of June
30, 2007.
4. We seek information and statistical data for each type of
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), including:
(a) The number of homes passed by each wired technology;
(b) the number of homes capable of receiving service via each
wireless technology;
(c) the number of subscribers and penetration rates for cable
services, including basic cable service tier (BST), cable programming
service tier (CPST), themed tiers (e.g., family tiers, foreign-language
tiers), digital cable service, digital tiers, a la carte services, pay-
per-view (PPV), and video-on-demand (VOD);
(d) for noncable MVPDs, the number of subscribers and penetration
rates for each available programming tier, a la carte services, PPV,
and VOD;
(e) how such cable penetration/subscription rate numbers were
derived, and whether the party providing the data considers it a
representative sample of the overall cable industry;
(f) available channel capacity of the system; the number, type, and
identity of video programming channels offered, the channel capacity
required for such offerings and the tier or tiers on which such
programming is offered; and the channel capacity of the system used for
non-video services;
(g) prices charged for various programming packages and the
equipment required to receive them;
(h) industry and individual firm financial information, such as
total revenue and revenue by individual company segments or services,
cash flow, and expenditures;
(i) information on how video programming distributors compare in
terms of relative size and financial resources;
(j) data that measure the audience reach of video programming
networks as well as relative control over the video distribution
market; and
(k) information on video distributor expansion into new markets,
such as local telephony, high-speed Internet access, wireless telephone
service, the percentage of subscribers taking these services, and the
competitive advantages of offering these services, as well as
information on new technologies being considered, tested, or deployed
by MVPDs for video, voice, and data offerings.
5. We are interested in data and information on the number of homes
that have a choice of 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? How many consumers have access to
wireline overbuilders? We also want to identify where wireless
competition exists, where is entry likely in the near future, and where
wireline competition once existed but failed. What effect has
competition among MVPDs had on consumers (e.g., prices, programming
choices, quality of service, and the
[[Page 6877]]
introduction of video and non-video advanced services)?
6. To evaluate substitution between MVPD technologies, we seek data
on the relative prices of similar services offered by different types
of competitors. Many cable operators offer or plan to offer bundled
service packages, such as video, voice, and high-speed data, as do
other MVPDs. What effect does bundling have on head-to-head
competition, and what effect does it have on MVPDs that do not offer
bundled services due to technical or other limitations? We are
interested in investigating methods for measuring and comparing bundled
service packages, such as video, voice, and high-speed data, among
MVPDs.
7. Barriers to entry can be regulatory, technological, or financial
in origin. We seek to understand what these barriers are and how they
impede competition in the MVPD marketplace. Are there any existing
Commission regulations or statutory provisions that prevent new
entrants from promptly deploying their networks and offering consumers
new video service options? Are there steps that Congress and the
Commission may take to encourage investment in new broadband networks?
We seek comment on what modifications, if any, are needed to pertinent
regulations or statutes to foster competition in the deployment of
broadband networks and the provision of video services.
8. We request detailed information about nonbroadcast programming
networks, including ownership, the type of programming networks (e.g.,
national, regional, local) and the genre of programming networks (e.g.,
sports, news, children's, general entertainment, foreign language). We
seek information about the proportion of national nonbroadcast networks
that are vertically integrated with a cable operator. We also seek to
identify programming networks affiliated with broadcast television
station licensees not owned by a cable operator; and programming
networks that are owned by MVPDs other than cable operators (e.g., DBS
operators). How does the counting of international networks affect the
calculation of the proportion of networks that are vertically
integrated? We note that programming networks are being offered in a
variety of forms (e.g., multiplexed networks, VOD, shared channels),
and we seek comment on whether and how to count such programming
networks for assessing trends in vertical integration. We ask
commenters to provide information regarding the delivery mode (i.e.,
satellite delivery, terrestrial delivery) of each national and regional
network as we are unaware of any comprehensive source of this
information.
9. We request information on children's, locally-originated, and
local news and community affairs programming distributed to consumers
by broadcasters and MVPDs. To what extent is programming offered in
languages other than English, nationally and locally? How is such
programming packaged (i.e., part of CPST, digital tier, separate tier)?
We also seek comment regarding public, educational, and governmental
(PEG) access, including the number of channels currently being used by
cable operators for this purpose. We ask for information on the
programming provided by DBS operators in compliance with their public
interest obligation. We also request information on the use of leased
access channels and the types of programming distributed on them, and
seek comment on whether these channels provide an opportunity for
independent programmers to distribute their programming.
10. We seek comment on programmers' access to MVPDs, including
comment on the effectiveness of the program carriage and channel
occupancy rules. We request information on the number of independent
networks that launched between June 2006 and June 2007, including total
subscribers; the distributors that carry them; the manner of carriage
(e.g., expanded basic, digital tier, themed digital tier, VOD); and
their ongoing efforts to obtain further distribution by cable, DBS, and
other service providers. Specifically, we request comment regarding any
difficulties programming networks encounter when launching a new
service and information on the kinds of carriage arrangements that are
required to secure MVPD carriage.
11. We seek information on how video programming distributors
package and market their programming. To what extent are MVPDs offering
programming on an a la carte basis or in mixed bundles, themed tiers,
and subscriber-selected tiers? We seek information on family friendly
programming, including the cost and content of these packages. Are
family tiers offered on a stand-alone basis or must consumers subscribe
to other tiers (e.g., basic service tier, digital tier) to receive
them? Do subscribers need additional equipment to receive the family
tier? Do MVPDs offer or plan to offer consumers more choice in channel
selection, specifically a la carte or themed tiers, rather than
traditional tiering of programming services?
12. We seek to assess the extent to which MVPDs have been able to
acquire or license programming owned by other video distributors. Is
there specific programming, national or regional/local, that is
unavailable to either cable or noncable operators and, if so, why? What
effect does vertical integration have on competing distributors'
ability to obtain programming? Are there certain ``must-have''
programming services, or genres of services (e.g., regional sports)
without which competitive video service providers may find themselves
unable to compete effectively?
13. We request comment on the effectiveness of our program access
rules. What, if any, video programming services that were once
delivered to MVPDs by satellite have been migrated to terrestrial
delivery? Which terrestrially delivered networks are unavailable to
some MVPDs under the so-called terrestrial exemption to the
Commission's program access rules? To what extent are terrestrially
delivered programming services owned by, operated by, or affiliated
with a programming distributor available to other video programming
distributors? What exclusive programming arrangements exist between
programmers and MVPDs? With the advent of VOD, what are the competitive
implications of video programming distributors securing exclusive
rights to programming for inclusion in their VOD offerings?
14. We request comment on competition issues specific to video
programming distribution in rural and smaller markets, including the
number of MVPDs serving small and rural markets, their subscribership,
the services and video programming options they offer, the technology
used to provide their services, and the cost for such video services.
How does competition differ between rural and smaller markets and
larger, urban areas? We seek information on alternative technologies,
such as digital subscriber line (DSL) and fiber-based Internet Protocol
television (IPTV) that small and rural operators are adopting. We seek
information on any existing differences in program carriage agreements
between larger urban systems and those in small or rural areas,
including information on whether video programming buying cooperatives
help small or rural operators obtain programming at discounted rates.
15. We also seek specific information regarding MVPD service
available in Alaska and Hawaii. We are interested in whether, and how,
cable, DBS, and other MVPD services offered in these
[[Page 6878]]
states differ from that provided in other states. What competitive
alternatives are available to consumers in Alaska and Hawaii? How do
prices for the various packages of service compare to the average
national price for such MVPD services? We also seek information on any
differences in the equipment needed by consumers to receive video
programming service.
16. We seek comment on any factors that are unique to competition
in multiple dwelling units (MDUs). How common is it for consumers to
have choices among video programming services within MDUs?
17. We also invite commenters to provide information on access to
programming by persons with disabilities. We seek comment on what, if
any, concerns industry and the public have with meeting these increased
captioning requirements for new Spanish language and ``pre-rule''
English language programming. We also seek information on the level and
quality of captioning for non-English language programming. 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 seek comment on the extent to which digital programming
may not be captioned and ask why this is the case. We seek information
on the availability of video description services, currently provided
by programmers on a voluntary basis and the amount and types of video
programming that includes video descriptions and whether MVPDs
generally carry video descriptions inserted by programmers.
Cable Television Service
18. For the 14th annual report, we seek updated information on the
performance of the cable television industry. We request information
regarding cable operators' continuing investments to upgrade their
plant and equipment to increase channel capacity, create digital
services, or offer advanced services. We request information on the
development of various methods or technologies to increase system
capacity, such as switched digital video technology.
19. For individual cable multiple system operators (MSOs), we
request information on the number of systems upgraded, the 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 new
capacity used for non-video services? How have the structure and price
of service tiers changed when systems become all digital? How would
they change in the future as more systems become all digital? What are
the implications for customer premises equipment?
20. We seek information on mergers and other cable system
transactions that occurred between June 2006 and June 2007, including
the names of the buyer and seller, date of the transaction, type of
transaction (i.e., sale or swap), name and location of the system,
homes passed and number of subscribers, and the price. We request data
regarding the effect of clustering (the practice whereby operators
concentrate their operations in specific geographic areas) on
competition in the video programming distribution market.
21. We seek information on whether and how cable operators are
changing the way they package programming and the role actual or
potential competition played in any such changes. Do cable operators
offer, or plan to offer, digital programming genre packages or themed
tiers (e.g., family, sports, lifestyle themed tiers) or programming on
an a la carte basis? We request data on the programming included on
these tiers and their cost, including information on whether
subscribers must purchase other tiers in order to subscribe to themed
tiers or to purchase channels on an a la carte basis.
22. Section 612(g) of the Communications Act provides that when
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 the households, the Commission may promulgate any
additional rules necessary to provide diversity of information sources.
We previously concluded that the first prong of the test has been met.
We request data and comment on whether both prongs of the 70/70 test
have been met. That is, cable operators should submit the following
information on a zip code basis: (a) total number of homes the cable
operator currently passes; (b) total number of homes the cable
currently passes with 36 or more activated channels; (c) total number
of subscribers, including all subscribers in MDUs; and (d) total number
of subscribers with 36 or more activated channels. To the extent that
cable operators filed 2007 data for the purposes of complying with our
2006 Report, they need not submit this same data again. We also seek
comment on whether telephone companies that provide video service and
overbuilders should be included in the 70/70 calculation.
23. Under sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act, cable
operators must set aside channel capacity for carriage of local
broadcast television stations. We request data on the percentage of
broadcast stations carried on cable pursuant to retransmission consent
agreements and the percentage that are carried pursuant to the must
carry provisions. We also seek information on the percentage of their
required set-aside channels that cable operators currently are using to
carry local broadcast signals. To what extent do cable operators pay
cash for broadcast station carriage rights, carry nonbroadcast
programming networks, provide advertising time, or otherwise compensate
broadcasters? We ask commenters to address the retransmission consent
process, including the effect of retransmission consent compensation on
cable rates, the ability of small cable operators to secure
retransmission consent on fair and reasonable terms, and the impact on
MVPDs and consumers of agreements that require the carriage of
nonbroadcast networks in exchange for the right to carry local
broadcast stations. We seek comment on these and any other issues
relating to must carry and retransmission consent that affect
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.
24. Section 612 of the Communications Act established the leased
access rules, which require a cable operator to set aside channel
capacity for commercial use by video programmers unaffiliated with the
operator and provide standards for rates, terms and conditions for the
use of leased access. We seek comment regarding leased access channels,
including the number of channels currently being used by cable
operators for these purposes and the types of programming offered on
such channels. Are these channels accomplishing their intended purpose
of providing competition to the programming channels under the control
of the cable operator?
25. We also request comment on the ``tier buy-through'' option
mandated by Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act, including the
percentage of subscribers taking advantage of this option; the
problems, if any, it creates; the manner in which cable operators make
this option known to the public; and the extent to which
[[Page 6879]]
the option is applicable (i.e., the extent to which programming is
offered or purchased on a per-program or per-channel basis).
Direct-to-Home Satellite Services
26. We seek information and data that explain the factors
contributing to DBS's growth in the video programming market, which may
help us assess whether those characteristics will continue to position
DBS as cable's principal competitor. Is there evidence of meaningful
price competition between DBS and cable? Do initial DBS equipment costs
or other factors prevent cable subscribers from switching despite
escalating monthly cable bills? Does the dynamic between the platforms
change in markets where DBS offers local broadcast signals?
27. We seek updated information on the geographic characteristics
of DBS subscribership and the factors that account for its relative
strengths or weaknesses in different markets (e.g., areas not served by
a cable or other wireline provider vs. other areas). We continue to
monitor technical limitations, such as line-of-sight requirements,
which impede the availability of DBS to some potential subscribers, in
particular MDU residents and residents in areas with natural
obstructions, such as trees. How many, or what percentage of,
households cannot receive DBS service because they are not within the
line-of-site of the satellite signal?
28. We seek updated information on the deployment of DBS satellites
as well as information regarding pending additions to DBS satellite
fleets, which will result in increased channel capacity or the
provision of advanced services. We request information on DBS
operators' current channel capacity and how they allocate it. What
technical methods are DBS providers using to increase capacity?
29. We request information on the number of markets where local-
into-local television service is offered, or will be offered in the
near future, including the number and affiliation of the stations
carried. What percentage of DBS subscribers are opting for local
programming packages in markets where they are available? What is the
cost to consumers of local-into-local broadcast service? What
percentage of DBS subscribers also subscribe to cable in order to
receive local broadcast signals? Both DIRECTV and EchoStar have
launched local broadcast stations in HD in a number of markets. How
many markets receive local high definition programming? We seek
information on the type of equipment necessary for DBS subscribers to
receive local HD broadcasts and the cost of the service and equipment.
30. On December 8, 2004, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) was enacted, which added some new
provisions to the Communications and Copyright Acts pertaining to the
retransmission by DBS of distant or out-of-market broadcast signals,
including the option to carry broadcast stations deemed ``significantly
viewed'' by the Commission. We request comment on the impact, if any,
these provisions have had on the MVPD marketplace. With respect to the
new authorization to market broadcast station signals deemed
``significantly viewed,'' to what extent are such signals being made
available to subscribers? If such signals are not being marketed, is
the situation due to technical or operational considerations, problems
with obtaining retransmission consents, or other reasons?
31. We request data on prices for DBS programming packages and
equipment, and the subscribership of different packages of programming.
Do DBS operators offer any programming on an a la carte basis and, if
so, what are the prices and subscription requirements associated with
such offerings? What additional charges, if any, are required to obtain
foreign language or foreign originated programming? We also request
information about programming packages available to C-Band subscribers,
including the types of packages offered, their prices, and the amount
of programming that is offered on an a la carte basis and that is free
and unscrambled.
Local Exchange Carriers
32. We previously reported that LEC entry into the MVPD industry
has been limited, but that developments demonstrated renewed LEC
interest in providing video programming services. We seek information
generally regarding LECs that provide video programming services. Are
there any regulatory or statutory impediments to LEC entry into the
video service market? Do LECs target specific areas or markets for
deployment and what are the determinants of these decisions? How do LEC
video services compare to those available from incumbent cable or
satellite operators? Is there evidence of price competition between
LECs, cable, and satellite operators?
33. The major incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) have
marketing agreements with DBS providers under which they sell the DBS
operator's video services along with their telephony and DSL-based high
speed Internet access service. What effect have these agreements had on
LEC entry into the video industry? We also request comment on whether
smaller ILECs are constructing their own all-fiber or mostly fiber
networks to deliver video and advanced services to their existing voice
and data customers. Are there any unique barriers to entry into smaller
and rural video markets?
Broadband Service Providers
34. We request information regarding the provision of video, voice,
and data services by broadband service providers (BSPs), including
municipal authorities, independent entities and competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs), as well as any entity that provides
broadband services. 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 subscribers purchase video service
alone, video and telephony, video and high-speed Internet access
services, or all three services? We seek comment on the effect that
BSPs have on video competition, and the characteristics that facilitate
BSP competitiveness (e.g., number of subscribers, homes passed,
geographical reach, demographics, and business models). Are there still
significant barriers to entry? What are the technical and economic
factors that determine whether overbuild systems are successful?
Open Video System Operators
35. To what extent are new wireline entrants operating under the
open video system (OVS) classification, and what factors (e.g., state
and local franchising requirements) cause new entrants to choose the
OVS classification? How many subscribers receive video services from
OVS operators and how many subscribers purchase the non-video services
offered? We seek information on why new entrants have chosen the OVS
classification. Do OVS operators offer video and non-video services in
combination with one another and, if so, how are rates affected by the
packaging of multiple services? What effect do OVS operators have on
video competition?
Electric and Gas Utilities
36. We seek information regarding utility companies that provide
video services or plan to deploy them. To what extent are video
programming services being bundled with telephone, high-speed Internet
access, or other services? How does the ability to offer
[[Page 6880]]
bundled services affect the relative competitive position of these
utilities? Are utilities' service prices similar to cable operators'
pricing of such services? If not, how do they differ?
Broadcast Television Service
37. 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 relative to those of
nonbroadcast 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? What
forms of compensation are broadcasters receiving for retransmission
consent? In terms of additional sources of revenue, to what extent are
cable and DBS operators paying cash compensation for retransmission of
broadcast stations? If the compensation is not cash based, how is it
accounted for?
38. We seek comment on a number of issues concerning the transition
to digital television (DTV) service. We request data on the number or
percentage of households relying solely on over-the-air broadcast
television for programming. We solicit specific information regarding
the number of households that will need digital to analog converter
boxes as of February 17, 2009, because they rely on over-the-air
broadcast television reception and do not have televisions with digital
tuners. We also seek information on the number of MVPD households, by
type of MVPD service, that rely on over-the-air reception for local
broadcast service on one or more of their television sets not connected
to an MVPD.
39. We request information regarding the carriage of DTV
programming by MVPDs and plans to increase the amount of DTV
programming carried. How many MVPD subscribers are served by systems
that carry DTV programming, and how many households are subscribing to
such services when offered as separate packages? We also request
comment on carriage agreements between MVPDs and broadcasters. We ask
specifically how many noncommercial educational broadcast stations are
being carried, and under what terms.
40. We seek information on how MVPDs package and price broadcast
and nonbroadcast DTV programming. What impact will the digital
transition have on competition if cable has the capacity to provide
broadcast HD programming, but DBS operators do not?
41. We request information regarding the amount and type of DTV
programming (i.e., network, local, syndicated) currently offered by
broadcasters and information on broadcasters' plans to increase the
amount of DTV programming. To what extent are broadcasters using their
DTV spectrum for SDTV, HDTV, and multicasting? To what extent are
stations locally producing DTV or HDTV programming? To what extent are
stations offered network HDTV programming that they are either not
equipped to pass through and broadcast or do not broadcast for other
reasons? How are noncommercial educational broadcasters, including PBS
affiliates, using the DTV spectrum? Are there differences in the ways
that commercial and noncommercial broadcasters are using their DTV
spectrum?
42. Have the Commission's programs to educate consumers about the
transition to digital television resulted in greater consumer
familiarity with DTV in general and HDTV specifically? We seek data
regarding consumers' awareness of the DTV transition, including
consumer survey results. We seek information on the consumer education
efforts of government, retailers, broadcasters, video programmers and
producers, and others. How successful are these consumer educations
efforts?
43. We seek information on the types of services and content that
broadcasters are transmitting using multicasting. In addition, we seek
information on whether multicasting is limited to large markets, or if
stations in small- and medium-sized markets are multicasting. How much
multicast programming is locally produced or locally focused? To what
extent is the provision of multicast service dependent upon its
carriage by cable and other MVPD operators? In how many markets are
cable operators and other MVPDs carrying broadcasters' multicast
programming, and which markets are they?
44. DTV also allows broadcasters to use part of their digital
bandwidth for subscription multichannel video programming services and
datacasting. We seek information on the types of services and content
broadcasters are transmitting using multicasting. To what extent is the
provision of multicast services dependent on carriage by cable and
other MVPD operators?
45. We seek updated information on the adoption of the equipment
needed to receive digital programming, either over the air or from an
MVPD, such as the total number of digital television (DTV) displays,
including HD-ready and Enhanced Definition (ED)-ready monitors, that
have been shipped to retailers and how many have been sold to
consumers. We request information on how many cable set-top boxes and
how many DBS receivers contain over-the-air DTV reception capabilities?
Wireless Cable Systems
46. 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.
Have factors such as concerns regarding access to programming,
bandwidth considerations, local regulatory considerations, and bundled
service offerings, led wireless cable operators to move away from video
service?
Private Cable Operators
47. We request information on the types of services offered by
private cable operators (PCOs), also known as satellite master antenna
television (SMATV) operators. We request information on the number of
PCOs in the United States, the geographic areas they serve, the
identification and size of PCO companies, and the type of facilities
they serve (e.g., hotels, apartment buildings, mobile home parks). We
seek comment on whether PCOs are using CARS (i.e., cable television
relay service) licenses to provide additional competition to incumbent
cable operators.
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers and Other Wireless Providers
48. We request updated information on the availability and
deployment of mobile video services, including information on
programming agreements between video programming networks and other
content providers and cell phone companies. Specifically, how many
mobile telephone users have access to, and subscribe to, such services?
What equipment is needed to receive video over cellular systems, and
what is the cost of equipment and service? In which markets is service
available? Do current trends in mobile video suggest that we should
consider mobile telephone providers that offer video programming to be
MVPDs?
49. We seek information on video distribution from other wireless
devices that are not CMRS providers and on the viewing equipment,
including iPods and personal digital assistants (PDAs), used to receive
such programming. We seek information on the manner in which video
content is delivered to these devices (e.g., broadcast vs. Internet
[[Page 6881]]
downloading). We seek information on how programmers are re-purposing
traditional broadcast and nonbroadcast programming for viewing on these
devices, and whether programmers are creating content specifically for
these new devices.
50. We also request comment on alternative wireless distribution
methods and technologies and the extent to which providers have adopted
or are considering adopting them. We seek comment on the extent to
which new technologies, such as WiMAX, are used to provide services
that compete with those offered by traditional video providers, as well
as information on the deployment of municipal Wi-Fi networks.
Web-Based Internet Video
51. We request information on the types of video services offered
over the Internet in both real time and downloadable formats, and
request comment on the quality of web-based video relative to
traditional video program distribution. We also ask commenters to
provide projections of whether web-based video will become a viable
competitor in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming
and, if so, when such competition is likely to emerge. Further, we seek
information on the extent to which Internet video distribution also has
become a means by which some new programming networks are developing
audience interest in their programming absent agreements with one of
the major MVPDs for distribution of their programming over cable or
DBS.
Advanced Services
52. We seek information on the advanced services offered by all
MVPDs, e.g., VOD, digital video recorders (DVRs), high-speed Internet
access, telephony, and HDTV. We request subscribership statistics; cost
data; and information on the type of equipment that is required for
each type of service offered. We request information on how MVPDs
bundle these services and how this affects competition.
53. For example, we seek information on the programming that is
available through video-on-demand. Is there programming that is
produced especially for VOD? How much VOD content is local? What amount
of VOD content is exclusive to any one video distributor?
54. We seek information on DVR services provided by MVPDs. What
percentage of subscribers has access to operator-supplied DVRs, and how
many subscribe to the service? How many use a DVR not supplied by an
MVPD? We seek information on the characteristics of the DVRs offered
(e.g., single or dual tuner, storage capacity). Do DBS providers still
use DVRs to approximate VOD service? What percentage of the DVR set-top
boxes are leased as opposed to purchased? Do MVPDs plan to offer a
network-based or centralized DVR-like service?
55. We seek information about high-speed Internet access service
offered by MVPDs. What percentage of MVPD Internet access service
subscribers also are video subscribers? How is the service priced, and
do video subscribers receive discounts? What is the status of DBS high-
speed Internet access (e.g., telephone return path, two-way satellite
delivered)? Are MVPDs giving subscribers a choice of Internet service
providers? Has any MVPD blocked access to certain kinds of Internet
content or applications?
56. Finally, we seek information on the latest developments
regarding Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony. Is it marketed
as part of a bundle of services? Are discounts offered to video
subscribers? To what extent are MVPDs phasing out switched circuit
telephony?
Technical Issues
57. Technological developments have important consequences for the
state of video competition. We seek comment and data on a range of
developments related to consumer equipment, navigation devices, the
Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP), PacketCable, CableCARDs,
advanced compression techniques, technical standards, and home
networking.
58. We seek comment on the availability and compatibility of
customer premises equipment used to provide video programming and other
services. How many households currently have analog television sets
that are connected to an external set-top box that allows for the
provision of various MVPD services? How many of these set-top boxes
only provide analog services and how many provide different types of
digital service, (i.e., decode and display HD signals)? How many of
these MVPD set-top boxes also contain cable modems, IP telephony
interfaces, DVR capabilities, or home networking capabilities, and how
are they priced? How many set-top boxes are capable of providing video
programming on an a la carte basis and is any MVPD offering this
service?
59. We also seek information on the retail availability of
navigation devices to consumers. How many such devices have been sold?
What are the obstacles to equipment manufacturers and others for
obtaining approval to attach devices to MVPD systems? How does customer
premises equipment design, function, and/or availability affect
consumer choice and competition between firms in the video programming
market? 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. We
also request information on how many products are currently available
with plug-and-play functionality, or are soon to be available.
60. We seek updated information on developments regarding
CableLabs' Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP) middleware solution.
Which manufacturers are incorporating OCAP into their products? How
many OCAP-compliant products have been deployed, and how many are in
use today? What types of applications exist for OCAP? Do smaller cable
systems have plans to deploy these devices and, if so, how will they do
it? We seek information on the results of OCAP device trials by MSOs in
select markets, and whether they are expected to lead to commercial
deployments and, if so, when. We request information on industry
developments to facilitate bidirectional services and interactive
television (ITV) applications and services. We also request updated
information on the state of the agreement between the Consumer
Electronics Association and the National Cable & Telecommunications
Association to incorporate support for OCAP in interactive Digital
Cable Ready (iDCR) devices, and whether any technical issues remain.
61. We solicit updated information on PacketCable, the
specification standard for the delivery of advanced real-time
multimedia services over two-way cable plant. We also seek updated
information on CableCARDs, including the number operators have placed
in service, the manner in which subscribers may obtain a CableCARD,
whether operators require professional installation of the card, and
any monthly subscription charges or one-time fees associated with
installing or authorizing the CableCARD. Have MVPDs or consumers
encountered problems with CableCARDs, and how have they been resolved?
We seek information on the status of operators' efforts to develop
multistream and two-way CableCARDs, and the impact this development
will likely have on the competitive marketplace for digital cable-ready
receivers, including DVRs.
[[Page 6882]]
62. We request updated information on the development and
deployment of any downloadable conditional access systems. We seek
comment on what content protection technologies are now available, how
they work, and what legal or marketplace impediments have affected the
roll-out of such tools. We seek comment on what security measures are
in use and the effect of the choice of such security measures on
competition. We also invite comment on how the Commission can encourage
the development of digital rights management technology that will
promote consumer uses of, and access to, high value digital content.
63. Broadcasters continue to improve their service and offerings
through enhancements to digital Vestigial Sideband Broadcasting (VSB),
called Enhanced VSB (E-VSB) and Advanced VSB (A-VSB). E-VSB was
approved by the American Television Standards Committee in July 2004,
as an amendment to the standard that allows broadcasters to choose
between bit rates and added robustness without impeding HDTV. Possible
uses of the technology include applications such as robust data
broadcasting to desktops, transmissions of file-based information to
handheld receivers, and ``fallback'' audio. However, E-VSB adoption has
been slow due to a lack of demand and a lack of E-VSB enabled
receivers. A-VSB is another amendment being proposed to the ATSC for
mobile video applications. ATSC has accepted the proposal of A-VSB, but
it has not yet reached the ``candidate standard'' stage, which involves
more exacting technical review. We request information on these and
other technological advances in digital broadcasting.
64. We seek information on the effect that technical rules and
standards have on the market for video programming services. Are there
specific actions with respect to the establishment of technical rules
and standards that the Commission may take to foster greater
competition among video service providers? Do current technical rules
and standards related to the provision of video services, such as the
``plug-and-play'' standards, provide a level playing field among
competitors in the video delivery marketplace?
Foreign Markets
65. We seek information or case studies that address the status of
competition in foreign markets for the delivery of video programming
because developments in other countries can lend insight into the
nature of competition in the United States. Specifically, we seek
information regarding the differences between the U.S. market and
foreign markets, including differences in pricing; packaging (e.g., a
la carte offerings); deployment of VoIP; the DTV transition; and
competition among MVPDs or over-the-air service. We seek input from
distributors operating both in the United States and abroad. How do
different regulatory approaches affect their business models?
Commenters also should identify any country in particular that the
Commission should examine.
Procedural Matters
66. Authority. This NOI is issued pursuant to authority contained
in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).
67. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR
1.1204(b)(1).
68. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on the NOI, MB Docket No. 07-269, on or before February
27, 2009, and reply comments on or before March 27, 2009. Comments may
be filed using: (a) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (b) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (c) 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.Commission.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 [email protected], 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.
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.
In addition, parties must serve the following with either
an electronic copy via e-mail or a paper copy of each pleading: (1) the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com; (2)
Marcia Glauberman, Media Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 2-C264,
[email protected]; and (3) Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room 2-C222, [email protected].
People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request
materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format, etc.) by e-mail at [email protected] 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. E9-2916 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P