[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40263-40280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16869]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 76
[CS Docket No. 97-80; PP Docket No. 00-67; FCC 10-181]
Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices; Compatibility
Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, we adopt new rules designed to improve the
operation of the CableCARD regime until a successor solution becomes
effective. The Commission has not been fully successful in implementing
the command of Section 629 of the Communications Act to ensure the
commercial availability of navigation devices used by consumers to
access the services of multichannel video programming distributors
(``MVPDs''). The rules adopted in this order are intended to bolster
support for retail CableCARD devices so that consumers may access cable
services without leasing a set-top box from their cable operators.
DATES: Effective August 8, 2011, except for Sec. Sec. 76.1205(b)(1),
76.1205(b)(1)(i), 76.1205(b)(2), 76.1205(b)(5), and 76.1602(b), which
contain information collection requirements that have not been approved
by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of Sec. Sec.
76.1205(b)(1), 76.1205(b)(1)(i), 76.1205(b)(2), 76.1205(b)(5), and
76.1602(b).
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
August 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, [email protected], of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120 or Alison Neplokh,
[email protected], of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-1083.
For additional information concerning the information collection
requirements contained in this document, send an e-mail to [email protected]
or contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's (Third
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration), FCC 10-181, adopted and
released on October 14, 2010. The full text of these documents is
available for public inspection and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These documents
will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
(Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or
Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request these documents in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send
an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Summary of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration
1. In this Third Report and Order (``Order''), we remedy
shortcomings in our CableCARD rules in order to improve consumers'
experience with retail navigation devices (such as set-top boxes and
digital cable-ready television sets) and CableCARDs, the security
devices used in conjunction with navigation devices to perform the
conditional access functions necessary to access cable services. We
believe these rule changes are necessary to discharge our
responsibility under the Act to assure the development of a retail
market for devices that can navigate cable services. We seek to remove
the disparity in consumer experience between those who choose to buy a
retail device and those who lease the cable provider's set-top box, as
the
[[Page 40264]]
disparity is impeding the development of a retail market for navigation
devices. Specifically, we adopt rules today to (1) require cable
operators to support the reception of switched digital video services
on retail devices to ensure that subscribers are able to access the
services for which they pay regardless of whether they lease or
purchase their devices; (2) prohibit price discrimination against
retail devices to support a competitive marketplace for retail devices;
(3) require cable operators to allow self-installation of CableCARDs
where device manufacturers offer device-specific installation
instructions to make the installation experience for retail devices
comparable to the experience for leased devices; (4) require cable
operators to provide multi-stream CableCARDs by default to ensure that
cable operators are providing their subscribers with current CableCARD
technology; and (5) clarify that CableCARD device certification rules
are limited to certain technical features to make it easier for device
manufacturers to get their products to market. We also modify our rules
to encourage home-networking by simplifying our set-top box output
requirements. In addition, we adopt a rule to promote the cable
industry's transition to all-digital networks by exempting all one-way
set-top boxes without recording functionality from the integration ban.
Each of the rule changes adopted in this item are intended to meet the
goals of Section 629 by further developing a retail market for
navigation devices. Finally, we consider nine petitions for
reconsideration of prior decisions in CS Docket No. 97-80, PP Docket
No. 00-67, and the enforcement proceedings captioned above regarding
changes to device certification procedures, the Commission's content
encoding and protection rules, and access to switched digital video.
Together, the changes we adopt today should benefit consumers who wish
to buy navigation devices while at the same time removing unnecessary
regulatory obligations on cable operators.
2. Background. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress
added Section 629 to the Communications Act. That section directs the
Commission to adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability
of navigation devices used by consumers to access services from
multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs''). Section 629
covers ``equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video
programming and other services offered over multichannel video
programming systems.'' Congress, in enacting the section, pointed to
the vigorous retail market for customer premises equipment used with
the public switched-telephone network and sought to create a similarly
vigorous market for devices used with MVPD services.
3. In 1998, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order to
implement Section 629. The order required MVPDs to make available a
conditional access element separate from the basic navigation or host
device, in order to permit unaffiliated manufacturers and retailers to
manufacture and market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain
control over their system security. The technical details of this
conditional access element were to be worked out in industry
negotiations. In 2003, the Commission adopted, with certain
modifications, standards on which the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association (``NCTA'') and the Consumer Electronics
Association (``CEA'') had agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding
(``MOU''). The MOU prescribed the technical standards for one-way (from
cable system to customer device) CableCARD compatibility. The CableCARD
is a security device provided by an MVPD, which can be installed in a
retail navigation device bought by a consumer in the retail market to
allow the consumer's television to display MVPD-encrypted video
programming. To ensure adequate support by MVPDs for CableCARDs, the
Commission prohibited MVPDs from integrating the security function into
set-top boxes they lease to consumers, thus forcing MVPDs to rely on
CableCARDs as well. This ``integration ban'' was initially set to go
into effect on January 1, 2005, but that date was later extended to
July 1, 2007. Although the cable industry has challenged the lawfulness
of the integration ban on three separate occasions, in each of those
cases the DC Circuit denied those petitions.
4. Unfortunately, the Commission's efforts to date have not
developed a vigorous competitive market for retail navigation devices
that connect to subscription video services. Most cable subscribers
continue to use the traditional set-top boxes leased from their cable
operator; only 1 percent of the total navigation devices deployed are
purchased at retail. Although following adoption of the CableCARD rules
some television manufacturers sold unidirectional digital cable-ready
products (``UDCPs''), most manufacturers have abandoned the technology.
Indeed, since July 1, 2007, cable operators have deployed more than
22.75 million leased devices pre-equipped with CableCARDs, compared to
only 531,000 CableCARDs installed in retail devices connected to their
networks. Furthermore, while 605 UDCP models have been certified or
verified for use with CableCARDs, only 37 of those certifications have
occurred since the integration ban took effect in July 2007. This
evidence indicates that many retail device manufacturers abandoned
CableCARD before any substantial benefits of the integration ban could
be realized.
5. Not only were very few retail devices manufactured and
subsequently purchased in the retail market, but an additional
complication with the installation process further depressed the retail
market. The cable-operator leased devices come pre-equipped with a
CableCARD, so that no subscriber premises installation of the card is
required. But this is not the case with devices purchased at retail.
CableCARDs for use in retail devices must be installed in the home, and
many cable operators require professional installation by the cable
operator. Unfortunately, the record reflects poor performance with
regard to subscriber premise installations of CableCARDs in retail
devices. This could be a consequence of the fact that only 1 percent of
the total navigation devices deployed are purchased at retail and
require an actual CableCARD installation, which may have made it
difficult to train the cable installers properly. It could also reflect
either indifference or reluctance by cable operators to support
navigation devices purchased at retail in competition with their own
set-top boxes. Regardless of the cause, these serious installation
problems further undermine the development of a retail market.
6. A consumer using a unidirectional device cannot take advantage
of two-way services offered by a cable operator. The Commission
anticipated that the parties to the MOU would negotiate another
agreement to achieve bidirectional compatibility, using either a
software-based or hardware-based solution. Unlike one-way devices,
which can only receive communication from cable headends, bidirectional
devices can send requests to the cable headend, which enables those
devices to receive services like cable operator-provided interactive
programming guides, cable-operator provided video-on-demand and pay-
per-view, and other interactive programming services. When the
Commission realized in June 2007 that negotiations were not leading to
an agreement for bidirectional
[[Page 40265]]
compatibility between consumer electronics devices and cable systems,
it released a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking
comment on competing proposals for bidirectional compatibility and
other related issues. In the wake of the Two-way FNPRM, the six largest
cable operators and numerous consumer electronics manufacturers
negotiated an agreement for bidirectional compatibility that continues
to rely and builds on CableCARDs by using a middleware-based solution
called ``tru2way.''
7. The National Broadband Plan, released in March of this year,
recommended changes in the CableCARD rules to provide benefits to
consumers who use retail CableCARD devices without imposing unfair
regulatory burdens on the cable industry. The plan suggested that these
changes could serve as an interim solution that will benefit consumers
while the Commission considers broader changes to develop a retail
market for navigation devices. After considering those recommendations,
on April 21, 2010 the Commission adopted a Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') seeking comment on proposed measures to
remedy shortcomings in the existing CableCARD system. The Commission
proposed five measures intended to remove the disparity between the
treatment of consumers who choose to use a retail CableCARD-equipped
video device and those who lease a cable provider's video navigation
box. In the FNPRM, we sought comment on proposals to (1) Ensure that
retail devices have comparable access to video programming that is
prescheduled by the programming provider; (2) make CableCARD pricing
and billing more transparent; (3) streamline CableCARD installations;
(4) require cable operators to offer multi-stream CableCARDs; and (5)
clarify certification requirements. In the FNPRM, we also proposed a
rule change that would allow cable operators to substitute certain
interfaces in lieu of the IEEE-1394 interface currently required on all
high-definition set-top boxes, and proposed to define a baseline of
functionality that such interfaces must meet. Finally, in order to
encourage the cable industry's transition to digital technology, the
Commission proposed an exemption to the integration ban for all one-way
devices that do not have digital video recording capabilities.
8. DISCUSSION. Reforming the CableCARD System. Based on the record
before us, we conclude that modifications to our rules are necessary to
improve the CableCARD regime and advance the retail market for cable
navigation devices. We are sympathetic to concerns that we are adopting
these rules while we consider a successor regime, but we must keep in
mind that CableCARD is a realized technology--consumer electronics
manufacturers can build to and are building to the standard today.
Until a successor technology is actually available, the Commission must
strive to make the existing CableCARD standard work by adopting
inexpensive, easily implemented changes that will significantly improve
the user experience for retail CableCARD devices. Therefore, in this
order we adopt rule changes that will (1) require cable operators to
provide retail devices with access to switched-digital channels; (2)
require cable operators to provide greater transparency in their
CableCARD charges; (3) require cable operators to allow subscribers to
self-install CableCARDs and require cable operators to inform their
subscribers about this option; (4) require cable operators to provide
multi-stream CableCARDs by default, unless a subscriber explicitly
requests a single-stream CableCARD; and (5) clarify the testing
requirements for CableCARD devices. Based on our examination of the
record in this proceeding, we believe that these changes will be
inexpensive to implement and will eliminate or reduce the disparity in
the consumer experience between leased devices and retail devices,
which has dampened enthusiasm for retail devices.
9. Switched Digital Video. Switched Digital Video (``SDV'') is a
method of delivering linear programming that requires a set-top box to
request specific channels from the cable head-end. SDV allows cable
providers to offer their services more efficiently, as channels occupy
capacity on the system only if subscribers are viewing or recording
them. Unfortunately, this can affect one-way retail CableCARD devices
adversely because one-way devices are not capable of requesting the
switched channels, and therefore subscribers with retail devices are
unable to access programming provided using SDV. Certain cable
operators that have deployed SDV offer their subscribers free ``tuning
adapters,'' which are repurposed set-top boxes that allow TiVo and Moxi
retail set-top boxes and certain home-theater PCs to access switched
digital content. These cable operators have provided the tuning
adapters voluntarily, as the Commission's rules have not required cable
operators to provide access to switched digital channels for one-way
retail devices.
10. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether this
voluntary solution provides adequate support for retail navigation
devices. The Commission also sought comment on TiVo's proposal to use
an IP backchannel to request switched digital channels. There was
vigorous disagreement between commenters on this issue--certain
commenters strongly supported maintaining the status quo, while others
zealously advocated a rule that would require cable operators who use
SDV to support retail devices through the use of an IP backchannel.
11. Commenters who support maintaining the voluntary, market-based
tuning adapter solution argue that SDV benefits consumers and that any
changes to the status quo could stifle deployment of SDV and its
associated benefits. They assert that the tuning adapter solution works
adequately, and that there is no evidence that an IP backchannel would
work better than the tuning adapter solution. They also argue that it
does not make sense to require the industry to develop and deploy an IP
backchannel solution, which could be costly and discourage deployment
of SDV, particularly with the successor AllVid requirements on the
horizon and the current availability of the cable industry's tru2way
solution. They argue the additional development time and resources
necessary to implement an IP backchannel would be better allocated to
AllVid development. Certain commenters also assert that implementing a
signaling backchannel over the public Internet would raise security and
privacy concerns, including potential denial-of-service attacks,
attacks that could provide unauthorized access to proprietary networks,
and attacks that could result in theft of service and/or subscriber
data. Therefore, these commenters argue, the tuning adapter solution
that has developed in the marketplace is the most pragmatic, effective
way to ensure that retail devices can access switched channels, and the
Commission does not need to adopt rules.
12. While several commenters assert that the tuning adapter
solution works adequately, others argue that consumers will not
purchase retail CableCARD devices unless they are certain that they
will be able to access all of the programming to which they subscribe.
Because the Commission's rules do not require operators to provide
access by retail CableCARD devices to switched digital video channels,
TiVo is concerned that cable operators could withdraw their current
willingness to
[[Page 40266]]
provide tuning adapters at no additional charge to the customer.
Furthermore, a number of cable subscribers indicate that they have
trouble obtaining tuning adapters that work. These commenters argue
that the most effective way to provide retail CableCARD devices with
access to switched-digital channels is through the use of an IP
backchannel. They assert that the IP-backchannel solution would solve
problems that consumers experience with tuning adapters because it
would not require additional, potentially unreliable, customer-premises
hardware. Furthermore, they argue, the tuning adapter takes up space,
is not energy efficient, and limits the ability to use all of the
tuners on multi-tuner devices, thereby limiting the ability of multi-
tuner devices to record more than two channels at once. TiVo also
expresses concern that cable operators are misinforming subscribers
that certain channels are not available on retail devices. Finally,
TiVo and CEA assert that the IP backchannel solution would be less
expensive than tuning adapters in the long run.
13. We conclude that we should mandate SDV support for retail
devices without specifying the technology that cable operators must use
to ensure such compatibility. SDV is an innovative technology with a
number of benefits, and we do not wish to discourage its deployment.
The record is replete, however, with comments from consumers who have
had negative experiences using tuning adapters to access switched
digital channels on their retail CableCARD devices. Both of the
proposed solutions have significant benefits and drawbacks, and the
Commission believes that with appropriate direction, cable operators
will find the most efficient means of effectively supporting SDV. For
example, the Commission recognizes that the economics of deploying an
IP backchannel solution are different between those operators who have
already or will soon deploy SDV, and those operators who will deploy
the next generation of SDV hardware. The Commission does not wish to
foreclose the possibility of an IP backchannel for those operators to
whom it will add de minimis costs as the result of being included in
future headend equipment. Conversely, for those operators who currently
use SDV and have significant deployments of tuning adapters, the cost
to retrofit TiVo's IP backchannel proposal may be prohibitive. Further,
the Commission does not presume that these are the only two means of
supporting SDV, and expect that some operators may choose other
options, such as in-home IP signaling, that provide additional benefits
to consumers. We do not foreclose any of these options so long as
appropriate documentation is available to enable UDCPs to access SDV
channels.
14. Subscribers must be able to use the devices they purchase at
retail to access all of the linear channels that comprise the cable
package they purchase. Providing retail navigation devices and leased
navigation devices with equivalent access to linear programming at an
equivalent service price is essential to a retail market for navigation
devices. We also want to avoid making deployment of SDV unnecessarily
costly. While use of IP-backchannel would not require consumers to
purchase additional equipment, we recognize that mandating this
approach could be costly for some cable operators. Moreover, we note
that operators currently provide tuning adapters at no charge to
consumers. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under Section 629 of
the Communications Act, we require cable operators to ensure that cable
subscribers who use retail CableCARD navigation devices have
satisfactory access to all linear channels, but we will not mandate a
specific method by which cable operators must provide such access. We
believe that this rule change will address the security concerns raised
about the IP-backchannel proposal, as our rule will not require a cable
operator to adopt an approach that it believes is insecure. To address
the problems with tuning adapters identified by commenters, the
satisfactory access standard will require cable operators to ensure
that retail devices are able to tune at least as many switched digital
channels as that operator's most sophisticated operator-supplied set-
top box or four simultaneous channels, whichever is greater. Further,
the satisfactory access standard will require the ability to tune and
maintain the desired channel as long as it is being watched or
recorded, and to do so reliably. Furthermore, we prohibit cable
operators from presenting their customers with misleading information
regarding retail devices' ability to tune switched digital channels. We
adopt these requirements pursuant to Section 629 because we conclude
that SDV support for retail devices is necessary to assure a retail
market for navigation devices. We will continue to monitor the
development of SDV and the access afforded to cable customers who use,
or wish to use, retail navigation devices. If we find that customers
who want to use retail set-top boxes do not have satisfactory and
equivalent access to all of the linear channels that comprise the cable
package to which they subscribe, we will revisit our decision here.
15. CableCARD Pricing and Billing. In the FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on a proposal to require cable operators to list the fee
for their CableCARDs as a line item on subscribers' bills separate from
their host devices. The Commission proposed this rule change as a means
to inform customers about retail navigation device options and to
enable them to compare the price of a retail device to the price for
leasing a set-top box from their cable operator. The proposed rule also
was intended to ensure that the price that subscribers pay for
CableCARDs in retail devices is the same as the price that subscribers
pay for CableCARDs that are affixed to leased devices. Proponents of
the Commission's proposed rule suggest that separate billing will
facilitate fair choice and promote competition, as a viable retail
market depends on transparency, while opponents argue that such billing
would be difficult and expensive to implement, with no benefit to
subscribers. Proponents of the rule assert that Section 629 requires
separate billing and prohibits cross-subsidization. Opponents of the
rule point to Section 629(f), which states that ``Nothing in this
section shall be construed as expanding'' the Commission's authority
under the Communications Act. Those commenters assert that the proposed
rule would be an expansion of the Commission's authority under the
statutory rate provision, Section 623, which allows cable operators to
aggregate their equipment costs and charge a standard average rate
across their footprints.
16. Public Knowledge argues that the proposed rule does not go far
enough. Public Knowledge suggests that in addition to requiring cable
operators to separate the monthly fee for a CableCARD from the set-top
box on a subscriber's bill, the Commission should also require cable
operators to provide each subscriber with the aggregate amount the
subscriber has spent on set-top box lease fees. Additionally, Public
Knowledge argues that cable operators should be required to notify
subscribers about the retail options that are available to them. In a
similar vein, Montgomery County, Maryland suggests that the Commission
allow state legislatures to adopt legislation that would require cable
operators to sell the devices that they lease to ensure that consumers
have
[[Page 40267]]
more options to purchase navigation devices.
17. Opponents of the Commission's proposed billing rule assert that
a separate billing requirement would only serve to confuse consumers
and lead them to believe that their cable operators have added an extra
fee to their bills. They also assert that this rule would arbitrarily
burden subscribers who lease separated security devices as opposed to
those who do not because currently all subscribers pay the same lease
fee for a set-top box regardless of whether it has separated security.
They argue that implementation of the billing rule would be costly for
cable operators, as their billing systems are not designed to separate
the cost of a CableCARD from the cost of the set-top box. NCTA and
Arris assert that the availability of this information will not affect
the retail market because the cost of CableCARDs has no effect on the
retail market for set-top boxes.
18. Despite their opposition to the proposed rule as written, NCTA
and others are not opposed to the purposes behind the rule, which are
to treat retail and leased devices equivalently and encourage pricing
transparency. As a compromise, NCTA has proposed that cable operators
notify subscribers of the cost of CableCARDs on the operators' Web
sites and yearly rate card notices. NCTA asserts that its proposal
would serve the same purpose as the Commission's proposed rule without
imposing expensive and confusing billing burdens on cable operators.
19. We conclude that NCTA's compromise solution will inform
consumers about CableCARD costs and retail options adequately without
imposing unnecessary burdens on cable operators. Therefore, we adopt a
requirement that cable operators prominently list the fee for their
CableCARDs as a line item on their Web sites (readily accessible to all
members of the public) and annual rate cards separate from their host
devices, and provide such information orally or in writing at a
subscriber's request. These CableCARD lease fees must be uniform across
a cable system regardless of whether the CableCARD is used in a leased
set-top box or a navigation device purchased at retail. We are not
convinced that NCTA's solution will ensure that cable operators are not
subsidizing the costs of leased set-top boxes with service fees.
Accordingly, we also adopt a rule that requires cable operators to
reduce the price of packages that include set-top box rentals by the
cost of a set-top box rental for customers who use retail devices, and
prohibits cable operators from assessing service fees on consumer-owned
devices that are not imposed on leased devices. These price reductions
must reflect the portion of the package price that is reasonably
allocable to the device lease fee. In the event that an interested
party (including a consumer, local franchise authority, or device
manufacturer) alleges a violation of this ``reasonably allocable''
standard, the Commission will consider in its evaluation whether the
allocation is consistent with one or more of the following factors: (i)
an allocation determination approved by a local, state, or Federal
government entity; (ii) the monthly lease fee as stated on the cable
system rate card for the navigation device when offered by the cable
operator separately from a bundled offer; and (iii) the actual cost of
the navigation device amortized over a period of no more than 60
months. These rule changes are well within our statutory authority
under Section 629. Section 629 gives the Commission broad power to
adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability of navigation
devices and states that multichannel video programming distributors may
lease their own devices, as long as ``the system operator's charges to
consumers for such devices and equipment are separately stated and not
subsidized by charges'' for multichannel video programming service.
These minor rule changes will serve to ensure that cable operators are
not subsidizing the costs of their set-top boxes via service charges
and will serve to allow consumers to compare the costs involved in
choosing between purchasing or leasing a navigation device. This
prohibition on subsidies and increased transparency is vital to the
continued development of a retail navigation device market, as it will
allow subscribers to make informed economic decisions about whether
they should purchase a navigation device at retail.
20. CableCARD Installations. In the FNPRM, the Commission expressed
concern that CableCARD installation costs and policies may differ
unjustifiably between retail devices and leased boxes. To address this
situation, the Commission proposed requiring cable operators to allow
subscribers to install CableCARDs in retail devices themselves if the
cable operator allows its subscribers to self-install leased set-top
boxes. Furthermore, the Commission proposed a rule with regard to
professional installations that would require technicians to arrive
with at least the number of CableCARDs requested by the customer.
21. Commenters who support adopting the proposed installation rule
argue that individual users are more than capable of installing their
own CableCARDs. According to these commenters, the installation
consists of inserting a CableCARD and calling in to the cable operator
to report a series of numbers that appear on an activation screen,
which subscribers could easily do with basic instruction.
Unfortunately, despite the apparent simplicity of installation, these
individual subscribers comment that not all cable technicians are
properly trained to install CableCARDs and they do not always arrive
with functional CableCARDs; therefore it often takes several days and
multiple installation appointments to get functional CableCARDs
installed. According to TiVo, ``the premise of `plug and play' was that
a subscriber should be able to buy a device from a retailer, plug it
into her cable connection, and have it work without the cable
operator's intervention;'' therefore, TiVo argues, until individual
subscribers have the option to self-install their own CableCARDs,
subscribers will not be able to purchase devices that are truly ``plug
and play.''
22. NCTA and CEA advocate a modification to the proposed rule that
would require cable operators to allow self-installation of CableCARDs
on any device for which the manufacturer provides detailed, step-by-
step installation instructions. Several major cable operators,
including Charter and Comcast, support the self-installation option so
long as adequate installation instructions are provided by the
manufacturer. Likewise, manufacturers such as Panasonic support the
provision of Web-based installation walkthroughs as one means of
fulfilling the goal of making step-by-step instructions available to
consumers seeking to self-install CableCARDs. The few cable operator
proponents do, however, request a four- to six-month phase-in period
before this rule takes effect, during which time they will develop and
implement necessary internal procedures and training that reflect the
new policy.
23. Commenters including CEA/CERC and Panasonic suggest that cable
operators should be required to permit retail outlets to sell
CableCARDs and to assist in the installation at the point of sale.
Commenters from the cable industry were not necessarily opposed to this
option, but they did note that allowing retail stores to install
CableCARDs at the point of sale would introduce certain business,
technical, and operational hurdles, such as identifying the encryption
technology that a cable operator uses in the specific subscriber's
geographic location.
[[Page 40268]]
Therefore, they suggest that the Commission encourage industry
negotiations to explore this option, but they oppose adoption of a rule
that mandates retail installation. TiVo, however, supports this
proposal as one of the few means of fulfilling the true purpose of the
CableCARD requirement, which is to encourage a competitive market for
retail devices that can be purchased, taken home, and installed without
the cable operator's intervention.
24. In addition to its other proposals, CEA seeks better
enforcement of the CableCARD rules, including the new proposed
installation rule. CEA suggests that empowering local franchising
authorities to enforce the CableCARD rules would encourage cable
operators to comply with the rules.
25. Time Warner Cable and Verizon assert that cable operators are
best equipped to determine whether customers should be allowed to
install their own CableCARDs. They argue that the CableCARD
installation process is not straightforward, that consumers may not be
equipped to install such equipment, and that the installations are not
overly expensive. Verizon further argues that customers have shown no
real demand to perform self-installation. Similarly, Cox submits that
the low number of interested consumers does not justify development of
costly support mechanisms for those who wish to self-install, unless
the customer support burden shifts entirely to retail device
manufacturers. Verizon also expresses skepticism that the Commission
has authority to adopt such a rule.
26. We conclude that the best means of assuring the development of
a retail market for navigation devices is to require cable operators to
allow subscribers to self-install CableCARDs. We believe cable
operators should have time to train staff and develop more robust
customer support infrastructures and procedures, and provide nine
months to comply for any operators that allow subscribers on any of
their systems to self-install any cable modems or leased set-top boxes.
We are not persuaded by arguments that cable operators could not
support activation of retail CableCARD devices within this reasonable
transition period. However, we are concerned that a cable operator that
does not permit self-installation of any equipment that attaches to its
network may not have the customer support infrastructures in place to
handle self-installations and may need a longer transition period.
Therefore, we will allow cable operators that do not have any self-
installation support in place twelve months to phase in this self-
installation requirement. We also require cable operators to inform
their subscribers about the self-installation option when they request
CableCARDs.
27. With respect to professional installations, we adopt our
proposed rule requiring technicians to arrive with at least the number
of CableCARDs requested by the customer. We require cable operators to
make good faith efforts to ensure that all CableCARDs delivered to
customers or brought to professional installation appointments are in
good working condition and compatible with their customers' devices,
and to allow subscribers to request CableCARDs using the same methods
that subscribers can use to request leased set-top boxes. These rules
are intended to solve the complaints in the record that professional
CableCARD installations often require multiple appointments. We believe
that requiring cable technicians to have CableCARDs in good working
condition on hand when they are requested and allowing subscribers to
self-install CableCARDs will decrease the number of required
appointments dramatically. To address Time Warner Cable and Verizon's
concerns that subscribers may not be properly equipped to self-install
a CableCARD, our self-installation rule will apply only where device
manufacturers or vendors provide detailed, device-specific instructions
on how to install a CableCARD and the manufacturer's or vendor's toll-
free telephone number within the packaging of the device and on the
manufacturer's or vendor's Web site. At this time we will not adopt a
rule requiring retail installation of CableCARDs; however, since
devices will now contain instructions from manufacturers or vendors on
self-installation and because such an action will decrease the burden
on the cable providers, we encourage cable operators and consumer
electronics retailers to reach agreement through continued private
negotiations to achieve this type of consumer-friendly retail option.
28. In addition to empowering cable subscribers to install
CableCARDs, we will also make it easier for consumers to file
complaints relating to cable customer premises equipment (including
CableCARDs, tuning adapters, and set-top boxes) with the Commission by
adding a specific reference to CableCARDs and other customer premises
equipment to the process for filing complaints on our Web site. If a
cable operator chooses to provide satisfactory access to SDV channels
for retail devices by means of customer-premises equipment such as a
tuning adapter, this process will encompass complaints relating to such
equipment as well as complaints relating to CableCARDs. We will
strictly enforce our navigation device rules in order to ensure proper
support for CableCARD devices. We conclude that this streamlined
complaint process makes CEA's suggestion that the Commission provide
local franchising authorities with the authority to enforce the
CableCARD rules unnecessary, and will allow for more consistent
enforcement of our CableCARD rules nationwide. In addition, we will
develop new consumer education materials specifically discussing the
availability of cable boxes at retail as an alternative to leasing a
cable box from the cable operator. Within the next few weeks, these
materials will be available on our Web site and will be provided by our
call center to those customers who lack Web access.
29. The changes we adopt herein will improve the consumer
experience substantially, as cable subscribers will no longer have to
schedule multiple installation appointments for CableCARD
installations. Furthermore, these rule changes will place only a de
minimis burden on cable operators, because the device manufacturer's or
vendor's self-installation instructions will include the manufacturer's
or vendor's toll-free telephone number directing customer questions to
the manufacturer or vendor and not to the cable operator. We disagree
with Verizon's assertion that the Commission does not have the
authority to adopt such a rule, as we believe that this rule falls
squarely within our authority under Section 629. The need to schedule
multiple installation appointments unquestionably is an impediment to
realizing a competitive retail market for navigation devices, and the
record is replete with comments from frustrated consumers who have had
to schedule multiple appointments with technicians due to CableCARD
installation problems. We believe that Congress's intent in adopting
Section 629 was to ensure that cable operators treat retail navigation
devices in the same manner that they treat leased navigation devices.
Accordingly, we believe that we have clear statutory authority under
Section 629 to adopt this self-installation rule.
30. Multi-stream CableCARDs. A Multi-stream CableCARD is a single
CableCARD that is capable of decrypting multiple channels, thereby
allowing consumers to record one channel while simultaneously watching
another channel. Original CableCARDs were only capable of decrypting a
single
[[Page 40269]]
stream, therefore requiring devices with multiple tuners, such as most
digital video recorders, to include two CableCARD slots. With the
release of the Multi-stream CableCARD Interface Specification in 2005,
device manufacturers obtained the ability to receive up to six program
streams though a single CableCARD. Multi-stream CableCARDs, now called
M-Cards, can also be used by older devices that had been designed for
single-stream CableCARDs. Operators began deploying M-Cards shortly
after the adoption of the Multi-stream CableCARD Interface
Specification, and today retail devices often require them. In the
FNPRM, the Commission proposed requiring cable operators to offer M-
Cards upon request, to reduce the equipment fees paid by subscribers by
enabling them to use only one CableCARD per device rather than two or
more.
31. Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed rule,
though numerous commenters suggested the Commission require the
provisioning of M-Cards by default, rather than on request. TiVo,
Public Knowledge, and CEA all explicitly suggested this approach. Arris
and Tivo note that all leased set-top boxes include M-Cards, and that
newer retail devices require M-Cards to function properly. They further
claim that the record demonstrates that retail devices are left to use
recycled single-stream cards that may not work, while leased set-top
boxes are outfitted with new, functioning M-Cards. NCTA also states
they do not object to requiring cable operators to provide an M-Card to
any subscriber who requests one, though they assert that certain
devices work better with single-stream CableCARDs, and therefore cable
operators should also have the discretion to deploy them to their
subscribers.
32. Only Verizon and John Staurulakis, Inc. assert that the
Commission should not require cable operators to deploy M-Cards. They
assert that such a requirement would be costly and unnecessary because
so few subscribers actually use CableCARDs. Verizon further states that
the marketplace is already working to increase the availability of M-
Cards for those few subscribers. Comcast goes further, stating that M-
Cards have been widely used since 2007, and cable operators have
sufficient supplies of multi-stream CableCARDs to meet customer demand
for them. NCTA also suggests that the Commission adopt the multi-stream
CableCARD rules, which would test for compatibility between UDCPs and
M-Cards, that NCTA and the CE industry proposed in 2006.
33. We conclude that the best step we can take in this regard to
assure the development of a retail market for navigation devices is to
require cable operators to provide multi-stream CableCARDs by default,
unless a subscriber expressly requests a single-stream CableCARD. All
new devices require multi-stream CableCARDs, and multi-stream
CableCARDs have been standard equipment since 2007. Therefore,
requiring cable operators to provide multi-stream CableCARDs by default
will conform more closely to the concept of common reliance, provide
improved customer experience, and impose little, if any, costs on the
industry, as our examination of the record indicates that CableCARD
manufacturers are no longer making single stream CableCARDs to sell to
cable operators. We also adopt the multi-stream CableCARD rules that
NCTA and the CE industry proposed in 2006, as they are necessary to
update our rules to conform with the current state of CableCARD testing
procedures.
34. CableCARD Device Certification. In the FNPRM, the Commission
proposed a rule change intended to streamline the process of CableCARD
device certification. The proposed rule would prohibit CableLabs or
other qualified testing facilities from refusing to certify
Unidirectional Digital Cable Products for any reason other than a
failure to comply with a device conformance checklist referenced in the
Commission's rules. The Commission proposed the rule change based on
complaints regarding the cost, complexity, and restrictiveness of
device certification. The Commission also committed to ``consider any
other proposed solution to streamline the CableCARD certification
process to facilitate the introduction of retail navigation devices.''
35. Comments regarding CableCARD device certification indicate that
the proposed rule would simply codify the CableCARD certification
process as it exists today. No commenter opposes the proposed rule,
although certain commenters argue that the proposed rule would not do
enough to protect device manufacturers. In addition, certain commenters
argue that the proposed device certification rule is not rigorous
enough to assure a competitive device market. Specifically, CEA and
Public Knowledge each encourage the Commission to extend the device
certification rule to apply to CableCARD-compatible computers and
computer peripheral devices and to limit the terms that CableLabs may
dictate in licensing agreements. They assert that these steps will
allow start-up companies like SageTV to develop their devices, and that
the proposed rule will not be effective without this extension. Indeed,
NCTA and MPAA acknowledge that the Commission's proposed rule would
have no effect on the SageTV certification problems that the Commission
highlighted in the FNPRM.
36. In a similar vein, IPCO and Nagravision encourage the
Commission to streamline the certification process for the CableCARD
separated security modules, as the Commission does not have a rule that
prescribes a certification process for the CableCARD itself. They
assert that CableLabs has delayed certification of competitive
separated security modules, which limits the companies' ability to
develop affordable whole-system solutions to sell to cable operators.
They reason that, if device manufacturers can manufacture and test
their own CableCARDs in conjunction with their retail devices, they
will be able to develop products more rapidly.
37. We conclude that the best step we can take in this regard to
carry out our statutory mandate under Section 629 is to (i) modify our
rules to reflect updated testing procedures, and (ii) adopt the
proposed rule that prohibits CableLabs or other qualified testing
facilities from refusing to certify UDCPs for any reason other than a
failure to comply with the conformance checklists referenced in our
current rules. These rule changes should encourage navigation device
manufacturers to build competitive devices by eliminating unnecessary
delays and costs associated with device testing, while continuing to
recognize the importance of protecting cable networks and service.
Based on the comments we have received about the certification process,
we believe that these rule changes do little more than codify the
certification process as it exists today. These changes require UDCP
manufacturers and qualified test facilities to proceed in accordance
with Uni-Dir-ATP-I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device
Acceptance Test Plan,'' M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, and TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-
20080304. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. You may obtain a copy from Cable Television Laboratories,
Inc., 858 Coal Creek Circle, Louisville, Colorado 80027,
www.cablelabs.com/opencable/udcp, (303) 661-9100. You may inspect a
copy at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW.,
Reference Information Center,
[[Page 40270]]
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270 or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information of the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
38. Comments reflect that while the certification process is
costly, CableLabs's device testing is conducted in a professional
manner and is important to ensure that CableCARD devices work properly.
CEA claims generally, however, that certain CableCARD licensing terms
may go beyond what is allowed under Sections 76.1201 and 76.1204 of our
rules. They assert that these licensing terms limit innovation. To the
extent that any interested party has concerns that an aspect of the
CableCard licensing regime violates Sections 76.1201 through 76.1204 of
the Commission's rules, that party may allege a specific violation of
the Commission's rules pursuant to Section 76.7 of our rules.
39. We decline to adopt IPCO and Nagravision's proposal to extend
certification rules to the CableCARD security modules by dictating the
specific testing procedures that CableLabs must use to certify
CableCARD security modules. CableCARDs are an important part of
protecting signal theft and protecting cable networks. Section 629(b)
prohibits the Commission from adopting regulations that would
jeopardize the security of cable systems or interfere with a cable
operator's right to prevent theft of service. Therefore, we believe
that it would be prudent to defer to CableLabs's policies on certifying
whether the CableCARDs themselves, which are the lynchpins of the
conditional access scheme, are robust enough to protect cable systems
and prevent theft of service.
40. Interface Requirements. The Commission's rules require cable
operators to include an IEEE 1394 interface on all high-definition set-
top boxes that they acquire for distribution to customers. IEEE 1394,
also known as Firewire, is an external serial data connection that
allows for audio and video data transfers. The Commission adopted a
requirement from the MOU to provide an IEEE 1394 interface on all high-
definition set-top boxes as a means of enabling a market for devices
which interact with the operator-supplied set-top box. In the FNPRM,
the Commission proposed to give cable operators greater flexibility in
deciding which type of interface to include on the set-top boxes that
they lease. Set-top box manufacturers and cable operators suggested
that alternative interfaces could perform the same functions and have
wider consumer adoption than the IEEE 1394 interface. The Commission
also proposed to clarify that operators must enable bi-directional
communication over these interfaces. The proposed clarification would
require the interfaces to be able to receive remote-control commands
from a connected device and deliver video in any industry-standard
format to ensure that video made available over these interfaces can be
received and displayed by devices manufactured by unaffiliated
manufacturers (i.e., manufacturers not owned by or under license of the
leased set-top box vendor or cable operator) and sold at retail. The
record generally supported replacing the IEEE 1394 interface
requirement with a rule that would instead require cable operators to
include an IP-based connection on all high-definition set-top boxes
that they acquire for distribution to customers. The commenters also
agreed that the Commission does not need to define the physical
interface (e.g., IEEE 1394, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or MoCA) used to transfer
the IP data. With respect to functionality, commenters disagreed on
whether the Commission should set a baseline for functionality of that
interface.
41. Certain commenters suggested that the Commission should adopt
baseline standards to define a ``functional'' IP connection on a set-
top box. Various industry associations have developed suites of
standards that include functionality we might rely on. For example,
Panasonic suggested that the Commission require that the IP connection
pass through ``OpenCable Host Thin Chassis Device'' remote commands.
OpenCable, branded for consumers as tru2way, was developed by
CableLabs, is a set of standards defining a common interface for
supporting interactive cable services. As the full implementation,
branded for consumers as tru2way, has seen limited adoption in retail
devices, the Host Thin Chassis Device standard was developed to provide
reduced costs while simultaneously enabling two-way communication with
CableCARDs. Among the component parts of the Host Thin Chassis Device
standard are specifications for passing remote control commands entered
with the TV remote control through to the set-top box.
42. CEA and the Digital Living Network Alliance (``DLNA'') each
suggest that the Commission require that devices follow the DLNA
guidelines. DLNA standards have been or are being developed to enable
widespread network-based connectivity for a wide variety of devices,
from handheld viewers to media servers. This focus on broad
interoperability has resulted in standards which permit the addition or
subtraction of various functional components, including remote control
commands and content formats. Three consumers suggested that the
Commission require that the interfaces pass through closed captioning
data. The 1394 Trade Association and Texas Instruments commented that
each leased set-top box should be required to play back any video that
is sent to it over an IEEE 1394 interface.
43. Comcast, Verizon, and NCTA each argue that defining
``functional'' would put a large burden on cable operators. They assert
that standards organizations are still working to define standards for
functionality over IP-based connections, and that cable operators could
not comply with a functionality requirement in the near future. They
assure the Commission that the market will determine the specific type
of functionality that consumers desire, and therefore urge the
Commission not to lock operators into a certain defined set of
functions, lest the Commission make the same mistakes it made with
regard to the IEEE 1394 interface requirement.
44. We conclude that the best step we can take in this regard to
fulfill our statutory mandate under Section 629 is to modify our
interface rule to require cable operators to include an IP-based
interface on all two-way high-definition set-top boxes that they
acquire for distribution to customers without specifying a physical
interface. IP has overwhelming marketplace support and serves the same
purpose that our IEEE 1394 connection requirement was intended to
serve. We agree with commenters that the method of physical transport
(e.g., Ethernet, Wi-Fi, MoCA, or IP implemented over IEEE 1394) is not
relevant in this situation, as we predict based on our examination of
the record in this proceeding that consumers will use network adapters
to choose the physical transport method that they prefer for networking
their devices, in furtherance of the goals of Section 629.
45. Contrary to Comcast, Verizon and NCTA's assertions, we believe
that it is important to define a baseline of functionality to ensure
that consumers who network their devices and device manufacturers can
rely on networked devices' ability to communicate with leased set-top
boxes. However, as with the physical interface itself, we find that it
is appropriate, at this time, to refrain from specifying the exact
manner in
[[Page 40271]]
which this baseline of functionality is to be implemented. Accordingly,
we modify our rules to require that the IP-based connection deliver the
video in a recordable format (e.g., MPEG-2, MPEG-4, h.264), and pass
through closed captioning data in a standard format. We also believe
more advanced functionalities are necessary to provide a foundation for
a retail market of navigation devices that are connected to leased set-
top boxes with limited capabilities. Those functionalities include
service discovery, video transport, and remote control command pass-
through standards for home networking. While these functionalities may
exist in some form today, there is considerable work ongoing in
industry standard bodies to provide those functionalities in a manner
designed for IP-based and home network solutions. We, therefore, do not
mandate that these additional functionalities be supported by cable
operators immediately. We do, however, wish to ensure that consumers
benefit from these additional functionalities in a timely manner, and
require operators to provide these additional functionalities by
December 1, 2012, but do not mandate a particular means by which these
functionalities are to be provided.
46. Promoting Cable's Digital Transition. The integration ban,
which went into effect in 2007, is designed to support the market for
retail navigation devices by creating an incentive for cable operators
to fully support CableCARDs, drive costs down through economies of
scale, and encourage cable operators to strive to improve and maintain
the CableCARD system. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to allow
operators to place into service new one-way navigation devices
(including devices capable of processing a high-definition signal) that
perform both conditional access and other functions in a single
integrated device provided that the devices do not perform recording
functions. The integration ban raises the cost of set-top boxes for
cable operators, which discourages operators from transitioning their
systems to all-digital. Transitioning to an all-digital cable system
allows operators to make more efficient use of spectrum capacity,
allowing the operators to dedicate more of their spectrum to broadband
and other services. The impetus for this proposed rule change was to
remove economic barriers that discourage cable operators from
transitioning their systems to all-digital.
47. The rule proposed in the FNPRM would still require operators to
offer CableCARDs to any subscribers who request them and to commonly
rely on CableCARDs for any digital video recorder and bidirectional
devices that they offer for lease or sale. In limiting the proposed
rule's applicability to devices with less functionality, the Commission
attempted to balance the goal of easing the financial burdens
associated with transitioning to digital cable systems with the
benefits that stem from common reliance. The Commission also sought
comment on whether the potential effect on the retail market supports
limiting any relief to smaller cable systems with activated capacity of
552 MHz or less. Some commenters additionally suggested that the
integration ban should be eliminated entirely.
48. Exempting Limited Capability High Definition Set-Top Boxes.
NCTA, ACA, Comcast, and Time Warner support the proposed rule and
suggest that it will not impact the limited retail market for
navigation devices that currently exists. Motorola adds that HD
capability is commonplace rather than advanced and, therefore, the
proposed rule would have no effect on the retail market for navigation
devices, as the competitive devices available at retail have advanced
functionality such as Internet connectivity and recording capability.
Finally, proponents of the rule change assert that it will allow cable
operators to deploy less expensive set-top boxes which will ease
consumers' financial burden when cable operators transition to digital
systems. BBT suggests that, for the sake of regulatory certainty, the
Commission should not take a piecemeal approach in applying the
integration ban suggesting that the Commission either abandon the
integration ban altogether or not at all.
49. Public Knowledge and CEA argue that the proposed rule would
undermine the goals of common reliance. They assert that the proposed
rule would limit cable operators' incentives to support CableCARDs, and
that the current state of CableCARD support suggests that cable
operators need more, not fewer, incentives to support CableCARDs. They
assert also that the Commission still does not have reliable data
regarding the cost of relying on CableCARDs or the economic effect
CableCARD exemptions have on the retail market. CEA and Public
Knowledge argue that, without such data, the Commission cannot
accurately balance the public interest benefits of the integration ban
against the benefit of an exemption.
50. Based on our examination of the record, we will adopt the
limited exemption to the integration ban proposed in the FNPRM. As the
Commission explained in 2005, common reliance ensures that cable
operators have incentives to make their services as accessible as
possible to CableCARD devices. We find that even if cable operators are
allowed to deploy integrated one-way devices they will still have
incentives to ensure that CableCARD devices are able to receive their
services because all two-way, digital video recorder (``DVR'') and
Internet-connected devices deployed by cable operators will still be
subject to the integration ban. Furthermore, as NCTA highlights, cable
operators have deployed more than 40 times as many CableCARDs in their
own separated security devices than in devices purchased at retail, and
we believe that the former devices will remain in service for years to
come. We conclude that this decision will not undermine the goal of
common reliance, as we believe that the majority of operator-leased
devices will continue to commonly rely on CableCARDs, and therefore
cable operators will continue to have adequate incentives to support
CableCARDs in retail devices. Allowing operators to deploy one-way
devices with integrated security will help lower the costs of set-top
box rentals to subscribers and allow operators to dedicate more of
their spectrum to broadband without undermining the effectiveness of
the integration ban. In this vein, while we recognize that the
inclusion of an IP-based home-networking connection would provide
additional functionality, we believe that the costs to consumers of
imposing the interface requirement would outweigh the potential
benefits. For these reasons, we exempt one-way set-top boxes from the
Commission's integration ban and, correspondingly, our interface
requirements.
51. Limiting the Proposed Exemption to Small Systems. We decline to
put any limitation on the size or capacity of the systems to which the
modified rule applies. While no commenter supports adopting an
exemption limited to small cable operators as its preferred course of
action, Public Knowledge, which encourages the Commission not to adopt
any exemption to the integration ban, alternatively suggests that the
Commission limit the rule's applicability to small cable systems.
Public Knowledge reasons that such a limitation would mitigate the
detrimental effects that such a rule would have on common reliance and
the development of a retail market for navigation devices. Cable
operators oppose such a limitation and assert that limiting the relief
would be akin to not
[[Page 40272]]
offering relief at all. They argue that economies of scale are
necessary to encourage manufacturers to develop inexpensive devices
with integrated security. They argue that small system operators will
not be able to achieve the economies of scale that are necessary to
make this relief effective. They also assert that limiting the relief
to small systems could unfairly harm subscribers who happen to live in
areas with large systems because consumers would benefit if large
systems were to transition to all-digital as well. For the same reasons
that these commenters present, we agree that a small-system limitation
would undermine the benefits of the rule change.
52. Ending the Integration Ban. We disagree with the arguments of
NCTA and cable operators that the Commission should abandon the
integration ban altogether. They assert that the integration ban is an
expensive, discriminatory requirement with no consumer benefit. Cable
operators reason that ending the integration ban would decrease the
costs of transitioning to all-digital systems and would lead to
increased availability of broadband. Finally, they argue that
terminating the integration ban would reduce set-top box costs for all
subscribers. In addition to the arguments summarized above, opponents
of ending the integration ban assert that it would discourage cable
operators from negotiating in good faith in developing a successor
technology to CableCARD, as cable operators would have no economic
incentive to work to develop such a technology in a timely fashion. We
agree. The integration ban continues to serve several important
purposes--better support for CableCARD devices, economies of scale for
CableCARDs, and economic incentives to develop better solutions. Ending
the integration ban before a successor standard is developed would
undermine the market for retail navigation devices.
53. Two-Way Negotiation Reporting. As the Commission discussed in
the FNPRM, in 2005 the Commission adopted a requirement that NCTA and
CEA file reports every 60 days regarding the status of negotiations on
a bidirectional CableCARD standard. As noted above, the six largest
cable operators and numerous consumer electronics manufacturers
negotiated an agreement for bidirectional compatibility that continues
to rely on and builds on the standards for CableCARDs by using a
middleware-based solution called ``tru2way.'' As the cable industry and
the consumer electronics industry have concluded their negotiations on
a bidirectional CableCARD standard, we do not believe it is necessary
for those parties to continue to file status reports regarding those
negotiations, and we therefore eliminate that requirement. As we will
still require cable operators to commonly rely on CableCARDs in certain
set-top boxes, we will retain the requirement that Comcast Corporation,
Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Charter Communications, and
Cablevision file quarterly reports detailing CableCARD deployment and
support.
54. Petitions for Reconsideration. The Commission also has before
it eight petitions for reconsideration in this docket. NCTA, DIRECTV,
Genesis Microchip, Inc., MPAA, Broadcast Music, Inc. and the American
Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (``BMI and ASCAP''), and
the National Music Publishers' Association et al. (``NMPA'') separately
filed petitions for reconsideration of the Plug and Play Order, while
NCTA and MPAA also petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission's
Sua Sponte Reconsideration Order. As noted below, many of these
petitioners seek reconsideration of the Commission's encoding rules.
Our encoding rules prescribe whether and how MVPDs may mark different
forms of content (e.g., broadcast, non-premium subscription, pay
television, video-on-demand, etc.) to limit the number of times the
content may be copied. In addition to the petitions for reconsideration
of orders adopted in the plug-and-play dockets, the Commission has
before it a petition for reconsideration filed by TiVo, Inc., which is
mooted by the rule changes adopted in this order.
55. NCTA. Our device certification rules allow device manufacturers
to self-certify CableCARD devices once they have received CableLabs
certification for any certified CableCARD device. NCTA urges the
Commission to reconsider the rule that a manufacturer's certified first
``product'' eliminates the need for its first television set to be
tested if the manufacturer has already received certification for a
set-top box. NCTA asserts that digital televisions (``DTVs'') are more
complex than DVR devices or other products, and that a manufacturer's
first television should be tested in order to ensure that consumers'
televisions are able to receive digital cable programming. We agree. As
NCTA explains in its petition for reconsideration, ``unless the first
tested UDCP is a DTV, there will be no real test that the UDCP actually
and clearly displays encrypted programming, [emergency alert system]
messages, [Program and System Information Protocol] information, and
closed captions so there is no assured compliance with all of the
relevant standards in the agreed-upon Joint Test Suite.'' We conclude
that making such testing a part of our rules is necessary to ensure
that new devices are built to comply with the Commission's rules.
Accordingly, we grant NCTA's petition for reconsideration with respect
to this issue, and modify our rules to clarify that a manufacturer may
not self-certify its first DTV.
56. Next, NCTA asserts that the Commission's rules permit too much
flexibility in defining a qualified testing facility, and would allow
unqualified organizations to test plug and play products because our
rules do not require test facilities to be impartial or have
appropriate testing equipment. NCTA urges us to define ``qualified
testing facility'' more precisely. CEA disagrees, asserting that NCTA
bases its assertions on unfounded security concerns. We agree with
NCTA's assertions that it is important for our rules to require that
qualified testing facilities are impartial organizations whose
employees have a detailed understanding of the Joint Test Suite for
CableCARD products. We do not believe that NCTA's security concerns are
unfounded, nor do we believe that NCTA's suggested rule change will
hinder independent testing facilities from becoming ``qualified testing
facilities.'' Therefore, we adopt NCTA's recommendation by modifying
our rules to specifically require testing facilities to be impartial
and have appropriate testing equipment. To the extent that there are
disagreements regarding whether specific testing facilities meet the
standards set forth in our modified rule, we will consider such
disagreements on a case-by-case basis.
57. In its final critique of the Plug and Play Order, NCTA takes
issue with the language of certain Commission rules. NCTA asserts that
the Commission's rules should unequivocally state that digital cable
ready products must ``pass'' applicable tests, rather than the current
requirement which merely requires that the devices be subject to
testing. NCTA also requests that we amend our rules to clarify that a
cable operator may carry more than 12 hours of programming metadata
(Program and System Information Protocol or ``PSIP'' data) if it so
chooses, and shall only be required to carry PSIP data that conforms to
the standards adopted by the Advanced Television Systems Committee for
transmission of that data. As these requests will clarify the
Commission's intent in the Plug and
[[Page 40273]]
Play Order, we adopt them without exception.
58. NCTA's petition for reconsideration of the Sua Sponte
Reconsideration Order requests that the Commission clarify that
programming that is not retransmitted ``substantially simultaneously''
to the time it is broadcast is not considered ``Unencrypted Broadcast
Television'' under our encoding rules. Currently, our rules define
``Unencrypted Broadcast Television'' as the retransmission of any
service, program, or schedule or group of programs that is made by a
terrestrial television broadcast station in the clear (i.e., without
any encryption). NCTA asserts that it is likely that this definition is
broader than the Commission intended. NCTA states, as an example, that
the omission of the term ``substantially simultaneously'' prevents it
from placing copy protections on VOD content that was originally
delivered over the air because it is a retransmission of a program that
was initially made by a terrestrial television broadcast station. With
our encoding rules, we intend to reflect consumer expectations that
they may freely copy unencrypted broadcast programming as it airs. We
also intend to reflect that consumers do not have the expectation that
they may freely copy all content simply because it was available over
the air at one point during the history of television broadcasting.
Therefore, we agree with NCTA's assertion that we should add the phrase
``substantially simultaneously'' back into the definition of
``Unencrypted Broadcast Television,'' for the reason that NCTA
provides.
59. DIRECTV. DIRECTV urges the Commission to close what it calls
the ``broadband loophole'' in the encoding rules. According to DIRECTV,
cable operators and telcos will be able to subvert the Commission's
encoding rules by delivering their video offerings over the Internet,
which are specifically exempt from our encoding rules. We understand
DIRECTV's concern, but there is no evidence that any MVPD is using
Internet-based delivery to subvert our encoding rules. If DIRECTV has
evidence that this concern is more than hypothetical and is harming
consumers, we urge the company to file a petition for declaratory
ruling or a petition for rulemaking. Therefore, we deny this portion of
DIRECTV's petition for reconsideration.
60. DIRECTV next argues that the Commission should define minimum
standards that include an IEEE 1394 interface. DIRECTV is concerned
that television manufacturers could build sets with IEEE 1394
connections that support a cable-only version of IEEE 1394, and prevent
consumers from connecting satellite boxes to their television sets.
Given the rule change that we adopted in Section III.B above to remove
the IEEE 1394 output requirement, and the limited consumer adoption of
IEEE 1394 outputs on television sets, we dismiss DIRECTV's petition for
reconsideration as moot on this point.
61. DIRECTV also takes issue with the Commission's decision to
provide CableLabs with the authority to approve and reject content
protection technologies for set-top box outputs and to license DFAST
technology, which is the content protection scheme used between
CableCARDs and UDCPs. DIRECTV's objections are based on a concern that
CableLabs could use its licensing power for anti-competitive purposes
against DIRECTV's services and devices by preventing DIRECTV devices
from using DFAST or rejecting DIRECTV's preferred content protection
technologies. The intervening years since the adoption of the Plug and
Play Order have demonstrated that these concerns are without merit.
Indeed, as of June 30, 2003, 20.4 million households in the U.S.
subscribed to DBS service; as of June 2010, that number increased to
over 33 million, and DIRECTV has not established that CableLabs has
rejected any content protection technology to DIRECTV's detriment.
Furthermore, we have invited DIRECTV and others to cooperate with the
Commission as we seek to develop a successor technology to CableCARD
that would apply to all MVPDs. Accordingly, we deny DIRECTV's petition
for reconsideration.
62. Genesis Microchip. Genesis Microchip takes issue with the
Commission's requirement that a DVI or HDMI interface be included on a
digital cable ready device. Genesis Microchip asserts that DVI and HDMI
were not developed by standards development organizations such as IEEE
and ANSI, and are not available on a non-discriminatory basis. Genesis
Microchip also asserts that the Commission's requirement violates the
Administrative Procedure Act. Opponents to Genesis Microchip's petition
for reconsideration point out correctly that the Commission addressed
Genesis Microchip's arguments in the Plug and Play Order, stating that
``the technology underlying these specifications is widely available in
the marketplace today'' and that ``the adopter agreements for these
technologies are freely offered on non-discriminatory terms.''
Furthermore, HDMI is a ubiquitous output, available on an estimated one
billion devices, and we are convinced that Genesis Microchip's
objections are not supported by marketplace reality. Therefore, we deny
Genesis Microchip's petition for reconsideration.
63. MPAA. MPAA seeks reconsideration of four points in the Plug and
Play Order. First, MPAA asserts that the Commission should mandate that
all digital cable ready devices be built with the capability to
recognize and honor video programming that is encoded with a request to
remotely disable selected audio/video outputs, also known as
``selectable output control.'' MPAA believes that selectable output
control functionality is essential to protect content and facilitate
future business models that take advantage of selectable output control
functionality. We do not believe that such a mandate is necessary. In
May 2010, the Commission's Media Bureau released an order granting in
part MPAA's request for waiver of the prohibition on the use of
selectable output control for certain high-value films in order to
support a new business model of delivering early-release films over
MVPD systems to consumers. As MPAA argued in support of that waiver,
``the use of SOC would have no impact whatsoever on the ability of
existing [consumer electronics equipment] to work in exactly the same
fashion that such devices work today.'' While it is possible that
consumer electronics manufacturers may want to build devices with SOC
in order to be compatible with future business models like the early-
release film model, as they are free to do under our rules, we do not
believe that it is necessary to require such functionality to protect
high-value content or ensure the success of such future business
models. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to mandate
that such functionality be built into consumer electronics devices, and
we deny MPAA's petition for reconsideration with respect to this issue.
64. Second, MPAA would like Subscription VOD designated as a
defined business model. Subscription VOD is a video-on-demand service
that requires customers to subscribe to a service to gain access to the
on-demand programming. In the Plug and Play Order, the Commission
classified Subscription VOD as an Undefined Business Model, in order to
``allow [* * *] SVOD to more fully develop as a program offering in the
marketplace.'' MPAA asserts that because the Commission did not
explicitly adopt a rule that allows cable operators to prohibit their
subscribers from copying Subscription VOD, the Commission will
[[Page 40274]]
stifle the development of the service. Starz Encore Group originally
opposed this petition, arguing that the Commission's flexible rules
would encourage SVOD to flourish, but later withdrew its opposition
based on its new position that the ``Undefined Business Model'' public
notification process is ``difficult and cumbersome * * * for cable
operators to navigate.'' We conclude that MPAA's concerns were
unfounded, and that the procedures agreed upon in the MOU are
sufficient to meet the needs of content owners, MVPDs, and their
subscribers. As contemplated in the Plug and Play Order, Subscription
VOD services have thrived in the marketplace, as Starz On-Demand, HBO
On-Demand, Cinemax On-Demand, and Showtime On-Demand are all popular
services available to consumers. Subject to the review process for
Undefined Business Models set forth in Section 76.1906 of our rules,
content providers and MVPDs are free to negotiate the terms for how
such business models are encoded. To the extent that any interested
party has specific problems with the current state of the encoding of
any SVOD service, our rules set forth procedures for filing complaints
regarding how such content is encoded. Accordingly, we deny MPAA's
petition for reconsideration with respect to this issue.
65. Third, MPAA seeks simplified procedures for announcing and
challenging the launch of an Undefined Business Model for content
encoding purposes. When an entity launches a new video programming
service that is not defined in our encoding rules, that entity must
announce its launch publicly, describe the service, and explain how it
will be encoded for recording purposes. Interested parties may then
challenge the encoding terms for up to two years after the announcement
of the service. MPAA's challenge stems from a concern that Undefined
Business Model announcements will lead to regulatory uncertainty
because numerous MVPDs will be required to make announcements regarding
these new business models, and that the window for accepting such
challenges is too long. We disagree. This rule has been in effect for
over six years, and the Commission has not received a single challenge
regarding the encoding rules for an undefined business model.
Accordingly, we conclude that MPAA's speculative challenge is
unfounded.
66. Fourth, MPAA seeks clarification that Section 76.1908(a), which
allows MVPDs to maintain undistributed copies of audio-visual content
that is encoded in any way the MVPD chooses, does not nullify
contractual obligations between MVPDs and content providers. MPAA is
correct in its assertion that the Commission did not intend that MVPDs
be allowed to use Section 76.1908(a) of the Commission's rules to make
copies of ``Copy Never'' content on a PVR in a consumer's home.
Therefore, we clarify that Section 76.1908(a) does not permit MVPDs to
make copies of content that would violate agreements between content
owners and MVPDs.
67. Finally, MPAA seeks review of the Commission's Sua Sponte
Reconsideration Order on the same grounds that NCTA does. For the same
reasons provided in our consideration of NCTA's petition above in
paragraph 57, MPAA's petition is granted with respect to this issue.
68. BMI and ASCAP. BMI and ASCAP have filed a petition for
reconsideration seeking a declaration that performance rights
organizations are allowed to decrypt content that has been encrypted,
when used solely for the purpose of monitoring and tracking
transmissions of audiovisual works for royalty purposes. We do not
believe that a rule change is necessary for such a narrow exception of
our rules, and we agree with the Home Recording Rights Coalition that
the Commission does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibition on circumventing content
encryption. Accordingly, we deny BMI and ASCAP's petition for
reconsideration.
69. NMPA. The National Music Publishers Association seeks
reconsideration of the Commission's decision not to require output
controls on digital audio outputs. NMPA asserts that unprotected
digital audio outputs will contribute to illegal copying, and that the
Commission's decision not to require content protections on digital
audio outputs violates copyright concerns. We continue to believe that
our existing treatment of audio outputs is necessary to protect legacy
devices that do not have protected digital connections. Moreover, NMPA
provides no evidence that illegal copying of the audio channel of cable
television programming is anything more than a speculative problem.
Accordingly, we deny NMPA's petition for reconsideration.
70. TiVo. On July 27, 2009, TiVo filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission's decision that our then existing
rules did not require cable operators to provide UDCPs with access to
switched digital channels. Due to the rule change that we adopt in
Section III.A.1 above, which requires cable operators to provide UDCPs
with access to switched digital channels, we dismiss TiVo's petition as
moot.
71. Conclusion. The steps we take in this order represent
inexpensive reforms that will remove the disparity in the subscriber
experience for those customers who choose to purchase a retail
navigation device as opposed to leasing the cable provider's set-top
box. These steps will help to develop a retail market for navigation
devices during the interim period before a successor solution is
developed and implemented for all MVPDs. While we are optimistic about
the prospects of a successor technology, we must also be pragmatic
about harnessing realized solutions. Therefore, until a successor
technology is actually available, the Commission must strive to make
the existing CableCARD standard work effectively.
72. Procedural Matters. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This
Order adopts new or revised information collection requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The
requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507 of the PRA. The Commission will
publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting comment on
the new or revised information collection requirement(s) adopted in
this document. The requirement(s) will not go into effect until OMB has
approved it and the Commission has published a notice announcing the
effective date of the information collection requirement(s). In
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' We find that the modified
information collection requirements must apply fully to small entities
(as well as to others) to ensure compliance with our CableCARD rules,
as described in the Order.
73. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') relating to this Report and
Order. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix A.
74. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of
this Third Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
[[Page 40275]]
75. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, [email protected], or
Brendan Murray, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-2120.
76. For additional information concerning the information
collection(s) contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at
(202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at [email protected].
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
77. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(FNPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals
in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No commenting parties
specifically addressed the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
78. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules. The need for FCC
regulation in this area derives from deficiencies in our rules that
prevent consumer electronics manufacturers from developing video
navigation devices (such as televisions and set-top boxes) that can be
connected directly to cable systems and access cable services without
the need for a cable-operator provided navigation device. The
objectives of the rules we adopt are to support a competitive market
for navigation devices by increasing customer service and by improving
audio-visual output functionality on cable-operator-leased devices.
79. Specifically, we adopt rules that (i) require cable operators
to provide customer and technical support for retail devices to access
switched digital channels; (ii) require that equivalent prices be
charged for CableCARDs for use in cable-operator-provided set-top boxes
and in retail devices, and that require the pricing information and
billing of the CableCARD to be more transparent; (iii) simplify the
CableCARD installation process; (iv) require cable operators to provide
their subscribers with CableCARDs that can tune multiple streams of
programming; and (v) streamline the CableCARD device certification
process by modifying our rules to reflect updated testing procedures,
and prohibiting a qualified testing facility from refusing to certify
UDCPs for any reason other than a failure to comply with the
conformance checklists referenced in our current rules.
80. Legal Basis. The authority for the action proposed in this
rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 303, 403, 601,
624A and 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i) and (j), 303, 403, 521, 544a and 549.
81. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs the Commission to
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental entity'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(``SBA'').
82. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services
we must, however, use current census data that are based on the
previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its
associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of
these firms can be considered small.
83. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide,
5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 302
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small.
84. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten
are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this
size standard. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
were a total of 1,041
[[Page 40276]]
establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had
employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority
of firms can be considered small.
85. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications
equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television
broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).'' The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Other Communications
Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 503 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 493 had employment of under 500, and an additional
7 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
86. Electronics Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for manufacturers of audio and video
equipment, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.
Census Bureau data indicates that there are 571 U.S. establishments
that manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 560 of these
establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as
small entities. The remaining 11 establishments have 500 or more
employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have
fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there are no more
than 560 small manufacturers of audio and visual electronics equipment
for consumer/household use.
87. Computer Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to computer manufacturers.
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of electronic computers
manufacturing. According to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer
must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
entity. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 485 firms that
manufacture electronic computers and of those, 476 have fewer than
1,000 employees and qualify as small entities. The remaining 9 firms
have 1,000 or more employees. We conclude that there are approximately
476 small computer manufacturers.
88. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements. The rules adopted in the Order will impose
additional reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements on
cable operators. The Order adopts a rule that requires cable operators
to charge equivalent and transparent prices for CableCARDs. This rule
change will require certain cable operators to change their billing
practices by reporting CableCARD prices on their Web sites, annual rate
cards, or monthly bills. The Order also adopts a rule that will require
device manufacturers to include CableCARD installation instructions
with their devices.
89. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
90. Four of the final rules did not require the Commission to
consider alternatives. Based on our review of the record and analysis,
a consideration of alternatives is unnecessary because adoption of
these rules leads to far greater consumer and industry benefits that
outweigh any de minimis burden that may be placed on small entities.
The switched digital support rule places a minor burden on cable
operators. This burden is offset because the rule will greatly benefit
consumers by ensuring that subscribers are able to access all of the
programming for which they pay. This rule ensures consumers will
benefit regardless of whether they use retail or leased devices.
91. The installation rule decreases the burden on cable operators
with respect to customer service calls. It requires cable technicians
to arrive with the number of CableCARDs that a consumer requests, and
allow for self-installation of CableCARDs. The effect will be to reduce
the difficulties that consumers face when seeking to install a
CableCARD in a retail device and to reduce the number of service calls
that cable operators and subscribers need to schedule.
92. The rule regarding Multi-stream CableCARDs places a minimal
burden on cable operators by requiring cable operators to provide
subscribers with Multi-stream CableCARDs. However, the record indicates
that Multi-stream CableCARDS have been the standard since 2007 and
CableCARD manufacturers are no longer making single stream CableCARDs
to sell to cable operators. Therefore, we believe the burden will be
minimal and will be greatly outweighed by the benefits to consumers.
This rule will reduce the cost that consumers face to use the picture-
in-picture and ``watch one, record one'' functions of their video
navigation devices, since fewer CableCARDs will be necessary.
93. The rule that streamlines the CableCARD device certification
process will place no burden on qualified testing facilities. To the
contrary, it will benefit consumer electronics manufacturers by
reducing the cost of the certification process and limiting the
influence that testing facilities have in the development of new
consumer electronics equipment.
94. The Commission did consider alternatives to the pricing and
billing rule. As proposed, the rule change would have required cable
operators to separate and report the cost of a CableCARD on every
monthly bill. As suggested in comments received in the proceeding, the
Commission instead adopted a rule that will instead require cable
operators to separate and report the cost on the annual rate card or on
the operator's Web site. This new rule places a smaller burden on cable
operators than the proposed rule. It will also greatly benefit
consumers, resulting in fewer customer service calls, an increase in
transparency of pricing, and provide consumers with pricing information
prior to purchase, rather than after.
95. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Commission's Proposals. None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Computer technology, Labeling, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Telephone,
Wiretapping and electronic surveillance, Incorporation by reference.
47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal
employment opportunity, Political
[[Page 40277]]
candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 15 and 76 as follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 15 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and
549.
0
2. Amend Sec. 15.38 by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text,
and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.38 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by
reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these
materials will be published in the Federal Register. The materials are
available for purchase at the corresponding addresses as noted, and all
are available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th St., SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) The following materials are available for purchase from at
least one of the following addresses: Global Engineering Documents, 15
Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, (800) 854-7179, or at http://global.ihs.com; or American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900,or at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp.; or Society of Cable
Telecommunications Engineers, 140 Philips Road, Exton, PA 19341-1318,
(800) 542-5040, or at http://www.scte.org/standards/index.cfm.
* * * * *
(c) The following materials are freely available from at least one
of the following addresses: Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., 858
Coal Creek Circle, Louisville, Colorado, 80027, http://www.cablelabs.com/opencable/udcp, (303) 661-9100; or at Consumer
Electronics Association, 1919 S. Eads St., Arlington; VA 22202, http://www.ce.org/public_policy, (703) 907-7634.
(1) Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device:
Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 3, 2003, IBR approved
for Sec. 15.123(c).
(2) Uni-Dir-ATP-I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device,
Acceptance Test Plan,'' February 25, 2004, IBR approved for Sec.
15.123(c).
(3) M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product
Supporting M-Card: Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,''
February 25, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. 15.123(c).
(4) TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-20080304, ``Uni-Directional Digital Cable
Products Supporting M-Card; M-UDCP Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' March
4, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. 15.123(c).
0
3. Revise Sec. 15.123(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.123 Labeling of digital cable ready products.
* * * * *
(c) Before a manufacturer's or importer's first unidirectional
digital cable product may be labeled or marketed as digital cable ready
or with other terminology as described in paragraph (b) of this
section, the manufacturer or importer shall verify the device as
follows:
(1) The manufacturer or importer shall have a sample of its first
model of a unidirectional digital cable product tested to show
compliance with the procedures set forth in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903:
Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) at a qualified test
facility. If the model fails to comply, the manufacturer or importer
shall have any modifications to the product to correct failures of the
procedures in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving
Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 3, 2003
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) retested at a qualified
test facility and the product must comply with Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903:
``Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS
Proforma,'' September 3, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
15.38) in accordance with the test procedures set forth in Uni-Dir-ATP-
I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device, Acceptance Test Plan,''
February 25, 2004 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) or with
M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-
Card: Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25,
2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) in accordance with
the test procedures set forth in TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-20080304, ``Uni-
Directional Digital Cable Products Supporting M-Card; M-UDCP Device
Acceptance Test Plan,'' March 4, 2008 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 15.38) before the product or any related model may be labeled or
marketed. If the manufacturer or importer's first unidirectional
digital cable product is not a television, then that manufacturer or
importer's first model of a unidirectional digital cable product which
is a television shall be tested pursuant to this subsection as though
it were the first unidirectional digital cable product. A qualified
test facility may only require compliance with the procedures set forth
in Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: Uni-Directional Receiving Device:
Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma, September 3, 2003 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 15.38). Compliance testing beyond those
procedures shall be at the discretion of the manufacturer or importer.
(2) A qualified test facility is a testing laboratory representing
cable television system operators serving a majority of the cable
television subscribers in the United States or an appropriately
qualified independent laboratory with adequate equipment and competent
personnel knowledgeable with respect to Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-
Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,''
September 03, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38); Uni-
Dir-ATP-I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device, Acceptance Test
Plan,'' February 25, 2004 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38);
M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-
Card: Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25,
2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38); and TP-ATP-M-UDCP-
I05-20080304, ``Uni-Directional Digital Cable Products Supporting M-
Card; M-UDCP Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' March 4, 2008 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 15.38). For any independent testing laboratory
to be qualified hereunder such laboratory must ensure that all its
decisions are impartial and have a documented structure which
safeguards impartiality of the operations of the testing laboratory. In
addition, any independent
[[Page 40278]]
testing laboratory qualified hereunder must not supply or design
products of the type it tests, nor provide any other products or
services that could compromise confidentiality, objectivity or
impartiality of the testing laboratory's testing process and decisions.
(3) Subsequent to the testing of its initial unidirectional digital
cable product model, a manufacturer or importer is not required to have
other models of unidirectional digital cable products tested at a
qualified test facility for compliance with the procedures of Uni-Dir-
PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance
Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 03, 2003 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 15.38) unless the first model tested was not a
television, in which event the first television shall be tested as
provided in Sec. 15.123(c)(1). The manufacturer or importer shall
ensure that all subsequent models of unidirectional digital cable
products comply with the procedures in the Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903:
``Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS
Proforma,'' September 03, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
15.38) and all other applicable rules and standards. The manufacturer
or importer shall maintain records indicating such compliance in
accordance with the verification procedure requirements in part 2,
subpart J of this chapter. The manufacturer or importer shall further
submit documentation verifying compliance with the procedures in the
Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device:
Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 03, 2003
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) to the qualified test
facility.
(4) Unidirectional digital cable product models must be tested for
compliance with Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving
Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 3, 2003
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) in accordance with Uni-
Dir-ATP-I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device Acceptance Test
Plan,'' February 25, 2004, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38)
or an equivalent test procedure that produces identical pass/fail test
results. In the event of any dispute over the applicable results under
an equivalent test procedure, the results under Uni-Dir-ATP-I02-040225:
``Uni-Directional Receiving Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' February 25,
2004 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) shall govern.
(5) This paragraph applies to unidirectional digital cable product
models which utilize Point-of-Deployment modules (PODs) in multi-stream
mode (M-UDCPs).
(i) The manufacturer or importer shall have a sample of its first
model of a M-UDCP tested at a qualified test facility to show
compliance with M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product
Supporting M-Card: Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,''
February 25, 2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) as
specified in the procedures set forth in TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-20080304,
``Uni-Directional Digital Cable Products Supporting M-Card; M-UDCP
Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' March 4, 2008 (both references
incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38). If the model fails to
comply, the manufacturer or importer shall have retested, at a
qualified test facility, a product that complies with Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-
030903: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS
Proforma,'' September 03, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
15.38) in accordance with Uni-Dir-ATP-I02-040225: ``Uni-Directional
Receiving Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' February 25, 2004,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) or an equivalent test
procedure that produces identical pass/fail test results before any
product or related model may be labeled or marketed. If the
manufacturer or importer's first M-UDCP is not a television, then that
manufacturer or importer's first model of a M-UDCP which is a
television shall be tested pursuant to this subsection as though it
were the first M-UDCP.
(ii) A qualified test facility is a testing laboratory representing
cable television system operators serving a majority of the cable
television subscribers in the United States or an appropriately
qualified independent laboratory with adequate equipment and competent
personnel knowledgeable with Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: ``Uni-Directional
Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma,'' September 03,
2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38); Uni-Dir-ATP-I02-
040225: ``Uni-Directional Receiving Device, Acceptance Test Plan,''
February 25, 2004 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38); M-UDCP-
PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-Card:
Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25, 2008
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38); and TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-
20080304, ``Uni-Directional Digital Cable Products Supporting M-Card;
M-UDCP Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' March 4, 2008 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 15.38). For any independent testing laboratory to
be qualified hereunder such laboratory must ensure that all its
decisions are impartial and have a documented structure which
safeguards impartiality of the operations of the testing laboratory. In
addition, any independent testing laboratory qualified hereunder must
not supply or design products of the type it tests, nor provide any
other products or services that could compromise confidentiality,
objectivity or impartiality of the testing laboratory's testing process
and decisions.
(iii) Subsequent to the successful testing of its initial M-UDCP, a
manufacturer or importer is not required to have other M-UDCP models
tested at a qualified test facility for compliance with M-UDCP-PICS-
I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-Card: Multiple
Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25, 2008
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) unless the first model
tested was not a television, in which event the first television shall
be tested as provided in Sec. 15.123(c)(5)(i). The manufacturer or
importer shall ensure that all subsequent models of M-UDCPs comply with
M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-
Card: Multiple Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25,
2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) and all other
applicable rules and standards. The manufacturer or importer shall
maintain records indicating such compliance in accordance with the
verification procedure requirements in part 2, subpart J of this
chapter. For each M-UDCP model, the manufacturer or importer shall
further submit documentation verifying compliance with M-UDCP-PICS-I04-
080225, ``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-Card: Multiple
Profiles; Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25, 2008
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) to the qualified test
facility.
(iv) M-UDCPs must be in compliance with M-UDCP-PICS-I04-080225,
``Uni-Directional Cable Product Supporting M-Card: Multiple Profiles;
Conformance Checklist: PICS,'' February 25, 2008 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 15.38) in accordance with the procedures set forth
in TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-20080304, ``Uni-Directional Digital Cable Products
Supporting M-Card; M-UDCP Device Acceptance Test Plan,'' March 4, 2008
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) or an equivalent test
procedure that produces identical pass/fail test results. In the event
of any dispute over the applicable results under an equivalent test
procedure, the
[[Page 40279]]
results under TP-ATP-M-UDCP-I05-20080304, ``Uni-Directional Digital
Cable Products Supporting M-Card; M-UDCP Device Acceptance Test Plan,''
March 4, 2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38) shall
govern.
* * * * *
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
4. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521,
522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549,
552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
0
5. Revise Sec. 76.640(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital cable products on
digital cable systems.
* * * * *
(b)* * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Effective July 1, 2011, include both: (A) a DVI or HDMI
interface and (B) a connection capable of delivering recordable high
definition video and closed captioning data in an industry standard
format on all high definition set-top boxes, except unidirectional set-
top boxes without recording functionality, acquired by a cable operator
for distribution to customers.
(iii) Effective December 1, 2012, ensure that the cable-operator-
provided high definition set-top boxes, except unidirectional set-top
boxes without recording functionality, shall comply with an open
industry standard that provides for audiovisual communications
including service discovery, video transport, and remote control
command pass-through standards for home networking.
0
6. Revise Sec. 76.1204(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access
or security functions.
(a) * * *
(2) The foregoing requirement shall not apply:
(i) With respect to unidirectional navigation devices without
recording functionality; or
(ii) To a multichannel video programming distributor that supports
the active use by subscribers of navigation devices that:
(A) Operate throughout the continental United States, and
(B) Are available from retail outlets and other vendors throughout
the United States that are not affiliated with the owner or operator of
the multichannel video programming system.
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 76.1205 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1205 CableCARD support.
(a) Technical information concerning interface parameters that are
needed to permit navigation devices to operate with multichannel video
programming systems shall be provided by the system operator upon
request in a timely manner.
(b) A multichannel video programming provider that is subject to
the requirements of Sec. 76.1204(a)(1) must:
(1) Provide the means to allow subscribers to self-install the
CableCARD in a CableCARD-reliant device purchased at retail and inform
a subscriber of this option when the subscriber requests a CableCARD.
This requirement shall be effective August 1, 2011, if the MVPD allows
its subscribers to self-install any cable modems or operator-leased
set-top boxes and November 1, 2011 if the MVPD does not allow its
subscribers to self-install any cable modems or operator-leased set-top
boxes;
(i) This requirement shall not apply to cases in which neither the
manufacturer nor the vendor of the CableCARD-reliant device furnishes
to purchasers appropriate instructions for self-installation of a
CableCARD, and a manned toll-free telephone number to answer consumer
questions regarding CableCARD installation but only for so long as such
instructions are not furnished and the call center is not offered;
(ii) [Reserved].
(2) Effective August 1, 2011, provide multi-stream CableCARDs to
subscribers, unless the subscriber requests a single-stream CableCARD;
(3) With respect to professional installations, ensure that the
technician arrives with no fewer than the number of CableCARDS
requested by the customer and ensure that all CableCARDs delivered to
customers are in good working condition and compatible with the
customer's device;
(4) Effective August 1, 2011, provide, through the use of a
commonly used interface and published specifications for communication,
CableCARD-reliant, firmware-upgradable navigation devices the ability
to tune simultaneously as many switched-digital channels as the
greatest number of streams supported by any set-top box provided by the
cable operator, or four simultaneous channels, whichever is greater;
(5) Separately disclose to consumers in a conspicuous manner with
written information provided to customers in accordance with Sec.
76.1602, with written or oral information at consumer request, and on
Web sites or billing inserts;
(i) Any assessed fees for the rental of single and additional
CableCARDs and the rental of operator-supplied navigation devices; and,
(ii) If such provider includes equipment in the price of a bundled
offer of one or more services, the fees reasonably allocable to:
(A) The rental of single and additional CableCARDs; and
(B) The rental of operator-supplied navigation devices.
(1) CableCARD rental fees shall be priced uniformly throughout a
cable system by such provider without regard to the intended use in
operator-supplied or consumer-owned equipment. No service fee shall be
imposed on a subscriber for support of a subscriber-provided device
that is not assessed on subscriber use of an operator-provided device.
(2) For any bundled offer combining service and an operator-
supplied navigation device into a single fee, including any bundled
offer providing a discount for the purchase of multiple services, such
provider shall make such offer available without discrimination to any
customer that owns a navigation device, and, to the extent the customer
uses such navigation device in lieu of the operator-supplied equipment
included in that bundled offer, shall further offer such customer a
discount from such offer equal to an amount not less than the monthly
rental fee reasonably allocable to the lease of the operator-supplied
navigation device included with that offer. For purposes of this
section, in determining what is ``reasonably allocable,'' the
Commission will consider in its evaluation whether the allocation is
consistent with one or more of the following factors:
(i) An allocation determination approved by a local, state, or
Federal government entity;
(ii) The monthly lease fee as stated on the cable system rate card
for the navigation device when offered by the cable operator separately
from a bundled offer; and
(iii) The actual cost of the navigation device amortized over a
period of no more than 60 months.
(c) A cable operator shall not provide misleading information
regarding the ability of navigation devices to access switched digital
channels.
0
8. Amend 76.1602 by adding paragraphs (b)(7) and (8) read as follows:
[[Page 40280]]
Sec. 76.1602 Customer service--general information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Effective May 1, 2011, any assessed fees for rental of
navigation devices and single and additional CableCARDs; and,
(8) Effective May 1, 2011, if such provider includes equipment in
the price of a bundled offer of one or more services, the fees
reasonably allocable to:
(i) The rental of single and additional CableCARDs; and
(ii) The rental of operator-supplied navigation devices.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 76.1902(s) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1902 Definitions.
* * * * *
(s) Unencrypted broadcast television means any service, program, or
schedule or group of programs, that is a substantially simultaneous
retransmission of a broadcast transmission (i.e., an over-the-air
transmission for reception by the general public using radio
frequencies allocated for that purpose) that is made by a terrestrial
television broadcast station located within the country or territory in
which the entity retransmitting such broadcast transmission also is
located, where such broadcast transmission is not subject to a
commercially-adopted access control method (e.g., is broadcast in the
clear to members of the public receiving such broadcasts), regardless
of whether such entity subjects such retransmission to an access
control method.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec. 76.1908(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1908 Certain practices not prohibited.
* * * * *
(a) Encoding, storing or managing commercial audiovisual content
within its distribution system or within a covered product under the
control of a covered entity's commercially adopted access control
method, provided that the outcome for the consumer from the application
of the encoding rules set out in Sec. 76.1904(a) and (b) is unchanged
thereby when such commercial audiovisual content is released to
consumer control and provided that all other laws, regulations, or
licenses applicable to such encoding, storage, or management shall be
unaffected by this section, or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-16869 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P