[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19085-19091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9550]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket 07-269; FCC 09-32]
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. On January 16, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of
Inquiry requesting data as of June 30, 2007. This document is a
Supplemental Notice of Inquiry that solicits additional information
from the public to ensure that the next report to Congress includes
information as of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. The Commission
intends to bring its reporting up to date and submit a single report to
Congress covering 2007, 2008, and 2009. We will use comments and data
submitted by parties in conjunction with publicly available information
and filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments for data through June 30,
2008, on or before May 20, 2009, and reply comments on or before June
20, 2009. Comments for data through June 30, 2009 information are due
on or before July 29, 2009, and reply comments are due on or before
August 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB 07-269, 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: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
[[Page 19086]]
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
2127, or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Supplemental Notice of Inquiry (``Supplemental Notice'') in MB Docket
No. 07-269, FCC 09-32, adopted on April 8, 2009, and released on April
9, 2009. The complete text of this Supplemental Notice 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 Brian
Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365. The complete text of
the Supplemental Notice 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 Supplemental 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. See
Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat 1460 (1992). The Supplemental Notice of
Inquiry (``Supplemental Notice'') solicits additional data, comment,
and analysis for the Commission's 14th annual report to Congress. On
January 16, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry
(``Notice'') seeking information, comments, and analyses that will
allow us to evaluate the status of competition in the video
marketplace, changes in the marketplace, prospects for new entrants,
factors that have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect
these factors are having on consumers' access to video programming. See
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 07-269, Notice of Inquiry,
24 FCC Rcd 750 (2009), 74 FR 6875 (Feb. 11, 2009) (``Notice''). The
Notice requested data as of June 30, 2007. By this Supplemental Notice,
we request additional information to ensure that the 14th Annual Report
includes information as of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
2. We seek updated information and comment on the questions and
issues raised in the Notice. Where possible, we request data as of June
30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Commenters should provide all of the
information called for by the Notice, as well as the additional
information described in the Supplemental Notice. As detailed in the
Notice, we ask commenters to provide data on video programming
distributors, including: (1) Cable systems; (2) direct-to-home
satellite services, including direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'')
services and large home satellite dish (``C-Band'') providers; (3)
other wireline providers, including local exchange carriers (``LECs''),
broadband service providers (``BSPs''), open video systems (``OVS''),
and utility-operated systems; (4) over-the-air broadcast television
stations; (5) other wireless service providers, including commercial
mobile radio services (``CMRS'') as well as wireless cable systems
using frequencies in the broadband radio and educational broadband
services; (6) private cable operators (``PCO'' systems), also known as
satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'') systems; and (7) the
Internet and Internet Protocol (``IP'') networks.
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
Head to Head Competition
3. We seek data and comment regarding consumers' choices for access
to video programming and how these choices have changed since June 30,
2007. Consumers generally have access to over-the-air broadcast
television, a cable system, and at least two DBS providers. In some
areas, consumers have access to video services provided by a second
cable system, often operated by a company considered a LEC or BSP. In
addition, some consumers have access to multichannel video programming
through an emerging technology, such as digital broadcast spectrum and
video over the Internet. What changes have occurred since June 30,
2007, with respect to the number and types of video delivery services
available to consumers? To continue to report on market trends, we seek
data on the number of subscribers and market share for each
multichannel video programming distributor (``MVPD''), as of June 30,
2008, and June 30, 2009.
4. Since 2007, there have been a number of changes in the market
for the delivery of video programming to consumers, including the
expansion of the areas where Verizon and AT&T compete with incumbent
cable operators and an increase in the amount of video programming
distributed over the Internet. Thus, we seek data and comment that will
enable us to evaluate changes in competition in the video distribution
marketplace on an annual basis since June 30, 2007. In particular, we
request comment on incumbent MVPDs' responses to the entry of
competitive alternatives for the delivery of video programming. Are
incumbent MVPDs modifying their programming services or pricing
policies in response to the entry of competing video providers? What
changes have occurred with respect to program offerings and the pricing
of contracts, including introductory discounts and cancellation
penalties, as a result of competition among MVPDs? How does customer
service impact the competitive dynamics among MVPDs? Is customer
service a factor in subscribers' choices among MVPDs? What other
factors affect consumers' decisions to subscribe to one MVPD rather
than another?
Impact of Regulatory Environment and Barriers to Entry
5. We seek comment on the effect of recent Commission regulatory
actions and their effect on competition. We also seek comment on
Commission actions that have taken place since the Notice was adopted.
To what extent have these actions affected competitive entry into the
video marketplace? We note that a number of states have continued to
enact franchising reform laws since the adoption of the Notice. How
have these state laws facilitated or otherwise changed the prospects
for new entrants into the field? We request information regarding the
impact of new franchising requirements.
Impact of Economic Environment on Video Programming Services
6. Access to Capital and Investment: We seek comment on the impact
of the current economic environment and its effect on access to capital
on the market for the delivery of video programming. How have the
economy, lending environment, and debt structures of media companies
affected broadcasters' and MVPDs' ability to invest in new technologies
and programming services? What effect does the current economic climate
have on broadcasters' operations, especially their ability to provide
local programming? Has the nationwide lack of access to financial
resources slowed down MVPDs' capital investment and deployment of
programming and/or services, including local programming? What impact
will
[[Page 19087]]
financial difficulties have on MVPDs', broadcasters', and programmers'
short-term and long-term economic and strategic decisions?
7. In previous reports, we have observed that cable operators, in
particular, have invested significant capital upgrading their systems
and adding new video and non-video services. Are cable operators and
other MVPDs continuing to invest in system upgrades and service
improvements? What effect has the recent economic climate had on cable
operators' and other MVPDs' investments or plans to provide additional
video and non-video services to their customers?
8. Access to Revenues and Investment: Broadcast stations and
networks, non-broadcast networks, MVPDs, and Internet sites all derive
revenue by selling time or space to advertisers, but some are more
dependent on advertising revenue than others. We seek comment on
whether shifts in advertising shares among media represent permanent,
structural changes within the video distribution industries or
temporary changes due to the cyclical nature of advertising and
challenging economic conditions. How do the shifts impact program
distributors' ability to invest in programming and new technology?
Digital Television
9. Since June 30, 2007, broadcasters have been transitioning from
analog to digital broadcasting formats. In addition, MVPDs have
increased the number of broadcast stations they carry in standard
definition (``SD'') and high-definition (``HD'') formats as well as the
number of non-broadcast networks they carry in HD. The DTV Delay Act,
enacted on February 11, 2009, extended the date for the nationwide
digital television (``DTV'') transition from February 17, 2009, to June
12, 2009. See DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. 111-4, 123 Stat. 112 (2009) (to be
codified at 47 U.S.C. 309 (j)(14) and 337(e)). We seek comment on the
impact of the digital television transition on consumers, broadcast
stations, and MVPDs. What has been the competitive impact on stations
that have already ceased analog broadcasting? To what extent has the
digital transition affected the number of households that subscribe to
MVPDs?
10. How has the availability of national and local programming in
HD formats affected the competitive dynamics between DBS, cable
operators, LECs, and other MVPDs? How do MVPDs package and price HDTV
programming? How many HDTV sets are sold each year and what percentage
of TV set sales do they represent? What percentage of set sales has
built-in ATSC tuners and what percentage is pure monitors? Does the
availability of HDTV programming drive sales of sets, or vice-versa?
11. How many television stations broadcast in HD, and what
percentage of the programming day is offered in HD? Of those, how many
are carried by MVPDs? Are network affiliates more likely to be carried
in HD than unaffiliated stations? With respect to DBS operators, what
percent of the broadcast stations carried in HD in a given market are
carried pursuant to satellite ``must carry'' (carry-one, carry-all)? In
what markets do MVPDs carry all stations in HD and not just those with
major network affiliations? Does the availability of HDTV programming
affect retransmission consent negotiations? We seek data and
information on the non-broadcast networks and broadcast stations that
cable operators offer in high-definition. What effect does the carriage
of HD programming have on the bandwidth capacity of MVPDs? Are there
differences among MVPDs in the quality of HD programming delivered to
consumers? If so, have these differences had an effect on competition?
Is the quality of HD programming an important competitive factor? How
much capacity do MPVDs devote to HDTV programming, either as video-on-
demand (``VOD'') or as linear channels? We seek information about the
extent to which broadcast stations offer multicast streams of digital
programming, the programming broadcasters carry on the multicast
channels, and whether MVPDs carry these channels.
Programming Issues
12. We seek updated data and information about the programming
issues discussed in the Notice, including additional information about
regional sports networks (``RSNs''). To continue to report on trends in
vertical integration, we request information on the number and
ownership of non-broadcast networks by cable operators, other MVPDs,
and broadcasters as of June 2008 and June 2009. How does consolidation
in the MVPD and broadcast markets impact the delivery of video
programming? We also solicit comment on the ability of MVPDs to acquire
specific programming services and the extent to which programming
networks are able to obtain carriage by MVPDs. Has the entry of LECs,
such as Verizon and AT&T, and other overbuilders in certain geographic
markets affected the ability of programming networks to gain and/or
retain carriage on other MVPDs?
Advanced Services: Bundling, HSD, Voice, Telephony, VOD, DVRs, and IPGs
13. In the Notice, we sought information on advanced service
offerings by MVPDs. We seek updated information on the impact of the
bundling of video services with voice and high-speed data services on
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming
services to consumers. In addition, we seek comment on developments
since June 30, 2007, regarding video-on-demand (``VOD'') services,
digital video recorders (``DVRs'') and services, and the role of
interactive program guides (``IPGs'').
14. Bundling, High-Speed Data, and Voice Services: We seek comment
on the extent to which MVPDs are bundling voice and data services with
video services in double, triple, or quadruple play packages and on the
impact of such offerings on competition. We seek information about the
types of services that MVPDs intend to offer using the 700 Megahertz
frequency band.
15. Impact of Video Services on Broadband Deployment: We seek
information on the extent to which the availability of video over the
Internet--through services that require high bandwidth, such as
YouTube, ITunes, and Amazon.com--has stimulated consumer demand for
MVPDs' deployment of ultra-high-speed broadband service, and vice-
versa. Do MVPDs expect to offer tiered high-speed data services (e.g.,
low-priced, slower speed versus higher-priced, faster speed service)?
If so, how would such tiering impact consumers' access to video
programming?
16. Video-on-Demand: We seek updated information on the use of VOD
for video programming distribution. Are programmers using VOD in lieu
of multiplexing their programming networks? If so, has VOD freed up
capacity for new networks, or do MPVDs need higher capacity for VOD?
How much VOD programming is locally originated or concerns local
subject matter? Has the shift in movie release windows affected the
viability of VOD programming?
17. Digital Video Recorders: What percentage of and types of
programming do viewers watch live versus on a time-shifted basis via a
DVR? How has time shifting affected the ability of programmers to
generate advertising revenue? How have new audience measurement metrics
impacted the ability of programming networks to serve niche audiences?
How do trends
[[Page 19088]]
in DVR capabilities impact competition among MVPDs? Have services
unaffiliated with MVPDs such as TiVo experienced difficulty with
obtaining licensing agreements?
18. Interactive Program Guides: As interactive television has
developed, the functionality of electronic programming guides
(``EPGs'') has evolved and they are now more commonly known as
interactive program guides (``IPGs''). What role do IPGs play in
consumers' viewing choices? How does the demise of TV program listings
in newspapers impact the role of IPGs? Are IPGs now the primary source
for viewers to obtain program listings? If so, how does this impact the
market for the delivery of video programming?
Technical Issues
19. In the Notice, we sought information on developments as of June
30, 2007, covering technologies and technical standards developed by
CableLabs, including middleware such as the Open Cable Application
Platform (``OCAP''), CableCARDS, and PacketCable. We also sought
comment on the status of navigation devices and the impact of the
Commission integration ban separating security from non-security
functions in system access devices. In addition, we requested
information about advances in digital broadcasting, home networking,
and content mobility developments as well as the impact of digital
rights management on the deployment of new technologies. We seek
similar information on the status of these technical issues as of June
2008 and June 2009, including analysis of the following developments.
Set-Top Boxes and Technology
20. Technical Standards for MVPDs' Set-Top Boxes: In 2004,
CableLabs initiated Enhanced Television (``ETV'') and the Enhanced
Television Binary Interchange Format (``EBIF'') to allow set-top boxes
already installed in subscribers' households (i.e., ``legacy boxes'')
to receive interactive software and programming. In 2001, CableLabs
introduced OCAP to make it easier to introduce new devices and to speed
the availability of interactive applications to MVPDs' systems. In
January 2008, the cable industry adopted the name ``tru2way'' to brand
and market OCAP products. EBIF and tru2way are complementary middleware
standards to promote interactive television on cable set-top boxes. We
seek updated information on the availability of tru2way-compliant and
EBIF-compliant devices, the merits and drawbacks of each standard, the
number of such devices in use by subscribers, and the types of services
enabled by each middleware standard.
21. We also seek comment on the strategic implications of the
availability of these enhanced services on the state of competition in
the market for delivery of video programming. How will the ability to
offer enhanced advertising and other interactive services impact MVPDs'
ability to compete with each other and with broadcast television
stations for audiences and advertising revenue? How does the
availability of highly-targeted advertising affect MVPDs' and
programmers' ability to offer local and niche programming for
traditionally unserved and underserved audiences?
22. CableCARDs: In 2003, the Commission adopted rules that allow
television sets to be built with ``plug-and-play'' functionality for
one-way digital services. The adopted interface for the separation of
the security elements is commonly referred to as a ``CableCARD.'' Since
our last report, cable operators have developed a multi-stream
CableCARD (i.e., CableCARDs that deliver more than one channel to
subscribers at a time) and are in the process of testing retail two-way
devices equipped with CableCARDs in certain trial markets. We request
information on the status of these trials and the merits of multi-
stream versus single-stream CableCARDs.
Competition Among Navigational Devices
23. Technical Standards for Consumer Electronics: CableLabs has
established a private negotiation process by which individual consumer
electronics manufacturers may develop two-way plug-and-play electronic
devices, including HDTV sets, digital video recorders, mobile phones,
and personal computers that are compatible with cable operators'
technology through tru2way. We request updated information regarding
applications using tru2way.
24. Since June 2007, several consumer electronics manufacturers
have signed memorandums of understanding with CableLabs to implement
OCAP. Has CableLabs's certification process for consumer electronic
devices affected the deployment of two-way, multi-stream CableCARD
devices? How do applications in electronic devices, including
television sets, personal computers, digital video recorders, and
mobile phones, compare with those leased by MVPDs to subscribers? How
many electronic devices currently have multi-stream CableCARDs and
tru2way middleware?
25. Non-CableCARD Separated Security: To promote a competitive
market for set-top boxes, the Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to
separate security in their leased devices and rely on the same
conditional access mechanism that consumer electronics manufacturers
use (frequently referred to as ``common reliance''). In January 2007,
the Commission reiterated that alternatives to CableCARDs that rely
upon a commonly-used interface comply with the rule requiring
separation of security elements from other elements of a set-top box.
The Alliance for Telecommunications and Industry Solutions, CableLabs,
Beyond Broadband Technology, and Widevine Technologies are working to
develop downloadable solutions for separable security. We seek comment
on these and any other downloadable security solutions. Are entities
that are developing these downloadable solutions working with device
manufacturers to ensure compatibility with retail devices? Are they
working with one another to ensure that retail devices will allow for
national portability as well as MVPD-to-MVPD portability?
Other Technical Issues
26. Home Networking and Content Mobility: Home networking allows
consumers to connect multiple devices in the home (e.g., set-top boxes,
television sets, personal computers, and video game consoles). We seek
updated information on the extent to which MVPDs are utilizing or
supporting home networking technologies, such as those proposed by the
High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance (``HANA'') or the Digital
Living Network Alliance (``DLNA'').
27. Content Protection and Digital Rights Management: Digital
content protection technology seeks to prevent the unauthorized copying
and redistribution of digital media. We request an update on what
content protection technologies are available or being developed to
protect digital media. How have copyright and digital rights laws,
regulations, or the lack thereof impacted the competitiveness of MVPDs
and their access to programming?
Cable Systems
28. Migration from Analog to Digital Tiers: We request updated
information on MVPDs, including changes in the manner in which video
and non-video services are being packaged and priced. One recent trend
is the migration of cable programming from analog tiers to digital
tiers, or the elimination of analog
[[Page 19089]]
service in favor of all-digital systems. What percentage of cable
subscribers subscribe to analog versus digital packages? What types of
programming have been moved from analog tiers to digital tiers? How
many cable operators have converted their systems to all-digital, and
what percentage of each operator's systems do they represent? Does one
system's decision to go all-digital drive competing systems in the same
market to follow suit? What are the costs and benefits of digital
migration to subscribers? When a system goes all digital, are basic
tier subscribers required to lease or purchase set-top boxes? How does
migration to an all-digital system affect the price of basic cable
service? What effect does the offering of advanced services, such as
DVR, IPG, and VOD, have on cable operators' decisions regarding
increasing the movement of programming from analog to digital tiers or
going all-digital?
29. Switched Digital Video: Traditionally, cable operators have
delivered all programming feeds at the same time to all subscribers.
Switched digital video is a method of delivering programming to
subscribers only when those subscribers actively request that
programming. What is the role of switched digital video in cable
operators' operating strategies? How has the deployment of switched
digital video impacted MVPDs' capacity and offering of programming
services? To what extent has the deployment of switched digital video
been successful? What efficiencies have cable operators realized
through the deployment of switched digital and what challenges do they
face? How does the deployment of switched digital video affect cable
operators' distribution of programming networks? What are the costs and
benefits of switched digital video to consumers?
30. Carriage of Broadcast Stations in Standard and High Definition
Digital Formats: In September 2007, the Commission adopted a Third
Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
requiring cable operators to either (1) deliver must-carry stations'
broadcast digital signals in digital format to all digital cable
subscribers and convert the signals to analog format at their headends
for all subscribers or (2) for all-digital systems, deliver the must-
carry stations' broadcast signals in digital format to all subscribers
in the systems. See Carriage of Digital Broadcast Signals: Amendment to
Part 76 of the Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Third Report and
Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC Rcd 21064
(2007). Small cable systems with 552 MHz or less bandwidth that lack
the capacity to carry the additional digital must-carry stations may
request a waiver of the carriage requirement. We seek comment on the
extent to which systems down-convert DTV signals to analog to make them
available to subscribers without the need for a set-top box. In
September 2008, the Commission released a Fourth Report and Order,
which, in part, exempts certain cable systems from the material
degradation requirement to carry broadcast signals in HD format. See
Carriage of Digital Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 13618 (2008). The systems must either 1) have 2,500 or fewer
subscribers and be unaffiliated with a large cable operator, or 2) have
an activated channel capacity of 552 MHz or less. How many systems with
552 MHz or less carry HDTV networks or stations? Is the lack of HD
programming a competitive disadvantage?
Direct-To-Home Satellite Services
31. Direct-to-home satellite services include DBS and C-band. In
addition to information requested in the Notice, we are interested in
how the digital transition has affected competition between DBS and
cable operators in markets where DBS does not offer local-into-local
broadcast television service. How has the availability or lack of
local-into-local service impacted consumers' readiness for the digital
television transition? Do households drop DBS subscriptions in order to
receive DTV programming from another MVPD? We also request information
regarding how broadcast stations deliver their signals to DBS
operators, e.g., over-the-air reception or alternative feeds, and we
seek comment on the extent to which multiple DBS operators share local
reception facilities. The number of subscribers to C-band video service
has been declining in recent years. Does this trend continue? If so, is
C-band still a viable option for multichannel video programming
service?
Other Wireline Service Providers
32. The Notice solicited comments regarding other wireline video
programming distributors, including local exchange carriers, broadband
service providers, open video system operators, and electric and gas
utilities. We seek information on these MVPD services for 2008 and 2009
as well as the following additional information.
33. Local Exchange Carriers: In the 13th Annual Report, we observed
that LECs, most notably Verizon and AT&T, have expanded the areas where
they provide facilities-based video services. What factors determine
whether these companies or other LECs enter the video marketplace? Have
the Commission's revised franchising rules or state franchising laws
had an impact on LEC video services? In addition, several LECs offer
video services through marketing agreements with DBS operators. We
request updated information regarding these agreements as well as the
bundles of services that LECs offer in competition with cable
operators. Do LECs compete on price? If not, why not? Do they offer
differentiated tiers? How does the amount of HD, VOD, and other
programming offered by LECs compare with similar offerings from other
MVPDs? Do LECs provide local programming? Do they offer any programming
comparable to public, educational, and government access (``PEG'')
programming? How does the quality of LECs' customer service compare
with that of other MVPDs? What percentage of new LEC customers come
from other MVPDs versus households relying exclusively on over-the-air
reception? We seek comments on what, if any, unique competitive
advantages LECs have in comparison with other MVPDs.
Broadcast Television Service
34. Over-the-Air-Only Households: Consumers who do not subscribe to
an MVPD service typically rely on over-the-air (``OTA'') reception of
local broadcast television signals. MVPD subscribers may rely on OTA
reception on some of their television sets. How many television
households rely exclusively on OTA reception, and how many MVPD
subscribers rely on OTA reception for at least one television set? Of
those television sets, how many are analog, digital-ready, or connected
to a digital converter box? Some MVPDs are offering introductory
discounts to attract new subscribers from OTA-only households. Is the
digital transition driving such households to subscribe to MVPDs? On
the other hand, is the digital transition causing MVPD subscribers to
drop their service and rely on free, OTA television? Are broadcast-only
households replacing analog sets with digital sets or HDTV sets? Does
the need for consumers to upgrade broadcast antennas to receive DTV
over-the-air in some situations affect consumers' decision to switch
from OTA reception to MVPD subscribership?
35. Multicasting: Multicasting is the process by which multiple
streams of
[[Page 19090]]
digital television programming are transmitted at the same time over a
single 6 MHz broadcast channel. 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 also using their multicasting capabilities. What types of
multicast programming are available? 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 doing so? How has the financial climate and postponement of the
digital television transition impacted broadcasters' roll-out of
multicast networks?
36. Must-Carry and Retransmission Consent: Every three years,
broadcast stations elect whether they want to be carried on cable
systems under must carry or retransmission consent. Similarly,
broadcast stations may elect whether to be carried under must carry or
retransmission consent in markets where DBS operators offer local-into-
local service. The most recent election was on October 1, 2008, for
carriage agreements beginning on January 1, 2009. What types of local
stations receive compensation pursuant to retransmission consent versus
carriage pursuant to must carry? What types of compensation do
broadcasters receive from MVPDs in return for carriage? Are
broadcasters compensated in cash or through in-kind arrangements? To
what extent do broadcast station owners tie carriage of affiliated non-
broadcast networks to carriage of their broadcast signals?
Other Wireless Service Providers
37. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers: As discussed in the
Notice, major commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') providers have
begun offering video services to users of cell phones and other mobile
services. We request updated information on the availability and
deployment of mobile video services offered by CMRS providers as of
June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Specifically, how many mobile
telephone users have access to, and subscribe to, such services? Has
the availability of such services increased and how have subscription
rates changed over time? To what extent are CMRS providers offering
mobile video services over their own spectrum licenses and networks,
and to what extent are they partnering with third parties? We request
information regarding programming agreements between video content
providers and CMRS providers. Do current trends in mobile video suggest
that we should classify CMRS providers that offer video programming as
MVPDs?
38. We also request updated information on video distribution to
wireless devices--including iPods, personal digital assistants, and
portable media players--that are not connected to CMRS networks. To
what extent do consumers use wireless connections, personal computer
sideloading, and other methods to receive video content on wireless
devices? How have the distribution methods and technologies changed
since June 30, 2007? We seek updated information on how video
programmers are re-purposing traditional broadcast and non-broadcast
programming for viewing on these devices, and the extent to which
programmers are creating content specifically for these new devices.
39. What types of programming do broadcasters intend to provide via
mobile digital television? Do they plan to include local news and
emergency broadcasting? What are the advantages of mobile video
provided by broadcasters versus other providers? We also request
information on whether and how video programmers will use new, IP-based
wireless network technologies--such as Worldwide Interoperability for
Microwave Access (``WiMAX'') and Long Term Evolution (``LTE'')--to
deliver mobile video programming. We seek comment on the extent to
which video services offered using these technologies will compete with
those offered by traditional video providers.
40. Wireless Cable Systems: We seek updated information on existing
wireless cable systems and the video and non-video services they offer.
How many wireless cable systems remain, and how many customers do they
serve? Do licensees in these services remain viable competitors in the
market for the delivery of video programming?
41. Private Cable Operators: Private cable operator (``PCO'')
systems, also known as satellite master antenna (``SMATV'') systems,
are video distribution facilities that do not use any public rights-of-
way. In the 13th Annual Report, we reported that PCOs serve a
decreasing number of subscribers, representing less than one percent of
all MVPD subscribers as of June 2006. Has this trend continued into
2008 and 2009? Do PCOs remain viable competitors in the market for the
delivery of video programming?
Web-Based Internet Video
42. Programming Network Delivery via Web Sites: Programmers and
content creators are offering an increasing amount of video programming
over the Internet. How is the availability of traditional broadcast
programming on other outlets affecting the role of broadcast stations
and MVPDs as distributors? How do licensing and copyright issues impact
competition for the distribution of video programming over the
Internet? Has the availability of programming online led to consumers
``cord cutting'' (i.e., cancelling MVPD service subscriptions) or no
longer viewing OTA broadcast television?
43. Direct Streaming of Programming Networks to Consumer
Electronics: In early 2009, consumer electronics manufacturers
announced that they plan to increase the number of television sets and
DVD players that incorporate streaming technology to enable viewers to
watch IP-delivered video. How does the ability to stream video
programming over computers and television sets impact the demand for
MVPD service? We seek information about developments relating to the
distribution of Web-based Internet video.
A. Foreign Markets
44. In previous reports, we have examined foreign markets because
developments in other countries can lend insight into the nature of
competition in the United States and the relative efficiency of market
structures and regulations within our nation. We again seek information
and case studies on video delivery in foreign markets, including the
transition to digital television, the emergence of IPTV as a competitor
in the MVPD market, and the implications of both these trends for
market structure and consumer choices. We also seek information
regarding recent developments in pricing and packaging of programming,
including a la carte offerings and the degree to which consumers can
choose channels in bundles or singly; technological developments;
developments in VoIP; and broadcast, cable, and satellite competition.
We also ask commenters to provide comparisons of the video programming
choices available to consumers between the United States and other
countries. In addition, we seek comment about the impact of global
technical standards on the development of video programming services
and technology within the United States.
[[Page 19091]]
II. Procedural Matters
45. Authority. This Supplemental Notice 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).
46. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
(1).
47. 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 Supplemental Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 07-
269, for 2008 information, on or before May 20, 2009, and reply
comments on or before June 20, 2009. For 2009 information, interested
parties may file comments on or before July 29, 2009, and reply
comments on or before August 28, 2009. 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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].
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9550 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P