[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61351-61375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24641]
[[Page 61351]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86]
Cable Television Technical and Operational Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
proposes to update technical and operational rules related to cable
television systems and other multichannel video programming
distributors that operate coaxial cable systems. The Commission seeks
comments on rules that would update its minimum signal quality
standards and signal leakage detection and monitoring for digital
transmission. Additionally, the Commission proposes numerous
corrections and updates to its to its cable television technical rules.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 10, 2012; reply comments
are due on or before January 7, 2013. Written PRA comments on the
proposed information collection requirements contained herein must be
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before December 10, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 12-217
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Nicholas A.
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167. For detailed
instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Jeffrey Neumann, [email protected], of the
Engineering Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7000. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to
[email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-217, adopted and released on August 3,
2012. The full text 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. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/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. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the
general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following
information collection(s). Public and agency comments are due December
10, 2012.
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request
(ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web
page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under
Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from
the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click
the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and
(6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for
the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary
Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control
number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC
submission to OMB will be displayed.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0289.
Title: Section 76.601 Performance Tests, Section 76.1704 Proof of
Performance Test Data, Section 76.1705 Performance Tests (Channels
Delivered), 76.1717 Compliance with Technical Standards
Form Number: Not applicable.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, local or
tribal government.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,150 respondents; 7,705
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 70 hours.
Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Semi-annually and
Triennial reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in
47 U.S.C. 624(e).
Total Annual Burden: 178,697 hours.
[[Page 61352]]
Total Annual Costs: None.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this collection of information.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised
proposed information collection from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and
Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This
rulemaking proposes to revise the information collection requirements
that support the Commission's cable television proof-of-performance
rules that would be codified at 47 CFR 76.601, as required by the 1992
Cable Act at 47 U.S.C. 624(e). Currently, the Commission's rules are
designed for analog transmission; the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposes creation of equivalent, digital rules. In recent years,
operators transitioning away from analog cable technology have no
longer been able to perform proof-of-performance testing on those
systems or portions of systems. By creating equivalent, digital rules,
the NPRM proposes to once again require the majority of the cable
industry to meet standards.
The proposed information collection requirements for this
collection are as follows:
47 CFR 76.601(b) requires the operator of each cable television
system shall conduct complete performance tests of that system at least
twice each calendar year (at intervals not to exceed seven months),
unless otherwise noted below. The performance tests shall be directed
at determining the extent to which the system complies with all the
technical standards set forth in Sec. 76.605 and shall be as follows:
(1) For cable television systems with 1,000 or more subscribers but
with 12,500 or fewer subscribers, proof-of-performance tests conducted
pursuant to this section shall include measurements taken at six (6)
widely separated points. However, within each cable system, one
additional test point shall be added for every additional 12,500
subscribers or fraction thereof (e.g., 7 test points if 12,501 to
25,000 subscribers; 8 test points if 25,001 to 37,500 subscribers,
etc.). In addition, for technically integrated portions of cable
systems that are not mechanically continuous (e.g., employing microwave
connections), at least one test point will be required for each portion
of the cable system served by a technically integrated hub. The proof-
of-performance test points chosen shall be balanced to represent all
geographic areas served by the cable system and should include at least
one test point in each local franchise area. At least one-third of the
test points shall be representative of subscriber terminals most
distant from the system input and from each microwave receiver (if
microwave transmissions are employed), in terms of cable length. The
measurements may be taken at convenient monitoring points in the cable
network: provided, that data shall be included to relate the measured
performance of the system as would be viewed from a nearby subscriber
terminal. An identification of the instruments, including the makes,
model numbers, and the most recent date of calibration, a description
of the procedures utilized, and a statement of the qualifications of
the person performing the tests shall also be included.
(2) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a
cable television system complies with the standards set forth in Sec.
76.605(b)(3), (4), and (5) shall be made on each of the National
Television System Committee (NTSC), or the analog television broadcast
standard, or similar video channels of that system. Unless otherwise
noted, proof-of-performance tests for all other standards in Sec.
76.605 (b) shall be made on a minimum of five (5) channels for systems
operating a total activated channel capacity of less than 550 MHz, and
ten (10) channels for systems operating a total activated channel
capacity of 550 MHz or greater. The channels selected for testing must
be representative of all the channels within the cable television
system.
(i) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct
semi-annual proof-of-performance tests of that system, to determine the
extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set
forth in Sec. 76.605(b)(4) as follows. The visual signal level on each
channel shall be measured and recorded, along with the date and time of
the measurement, once every six hours (at intervals of not less than
five hours or no more than seven hours after the previous measurement),
to include the warmest and the coldest times, during a 24-hour period
in January or February and in July or August.
(ii) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct
triennial proof-of-performance tests of its system to determine the
extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set
forth in Sec. 76.605(b)(11).
(3) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a
cable television system complies with the standards set forth in Sec.
76.605(c)(1) shall be made on each of the Quadrature Amplitude
Modulation (QAM), or the digital cable transmission standard, or
similar video channels of that system. Unless otherwise as noted,
proof-of-performance tests for all other standards in Sec. 76.605(c)
shall be made on a minimum of five (5) channels for systems operating a
total activated channel capacity of less than 550 MHz, and ten (10)
channels for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of
550 MHz or greater. The channels selected for testing must be
representative of all the channels within the cable television system.
(4) For cable televisions systems which operate both NTSC or
similar and QAM of similar channels, proof-of-performance tests to
determine the extent to which the cable televisions system complies
with Sec. 76.605(b)(1), (2), (6)-(11) and 76.605(c)(1) shall be
apportioned relative to the proportion of channels allocated to each
transmission type, except that at no time shall less than two channels
of a particular type be tested.
47 CFR 76.605(e) requires that cable television systems
distributing signals by methods other than 6 MHz NTSC or similar analog
channels or 6 MHz QAM or similar channels on conventional coaxial or
hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems and which, because of their basic
design, cannot comply with one or more of the technical standards set
forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, may be permitted to
operate upon Commission approval on a case-by-case basis. To obtain
Commission approval, the operator must submit to the Commission its own
proof-of-performance plan for ensuring subscribers receive good quality
signals.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0331.
Title: Aeronautical Frequency Notification, FCC Form 321.
Form Number: FCC Form 321.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit
institutions.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,100 respondents; 1,100
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.67 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement;
Recordkeeping requirement; One time reporting requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory
[[Page 61353]]
authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C.
302 and 303.
Total Annual Burden: 737 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $66,000.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this collection of information.
Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised
proposed information collection from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and
Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This
rulemaking proposes to revise the information collection requirements
that support the Commission's signal leakage rules that would be
codified at 47 CFR 76.1804, as required by the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309,
and 621. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal
Communications Commission is proposing to extend the notification
requirements to operators of digital systems at lower thresholds than
those required under existing, analog rules. Currently, operators are
required to file FCC Form 321 to notify the Commission when they
operate at a power above a particular threshold. This threshold was
designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum from
interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt a
lower threshold for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air
users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.
The NPRM proposes to create a digital equivalency for the
Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules are designed to
capture the same respondents previously covered by the Commission's
analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are transitioning, to
digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency is designed to
take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a result, absent
external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not change as a
result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or decrease to the
hourly burden). However, widespread industry consolidation has resulted
in fewer, though larger, respondents, resulting in a decrease in the
total number of estimated responses.
The NPRM does not propose that the information to be submitted on
the form be changed. The proposed information collection requirements
for this collection are as follows: Section 76.1804 states a
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) shall notify the
Commission before transmitting any carrier of other signal component
with an average power level across a 30 kHz bandwidth in any 2.5
millisecond time period equal to or greater than 10-5 watts
at any point in the cable distribution system on any new frequency or
frequencies in the aeronautical radio frequency bands (108-137 MHz,
225-400 MHz). The notification shall be made on FCC Form 321 . Such
notification shall include:
(a) Legal name and local address of the MVPD;
(b) The names and FCC identifiers (e.g., CA0001) of the system
communities affected, for a cable system, and the name and FCC
identifier (e.g., CAB901), for other MVPDs;
(c) The names and telephone numbers of local system officials who
are responsible for compliance with Sec. Sec. 76.610 through 76.616
and Sec. 76.1803;
(d) Carrier frequency, tolerance, and type of modulation of all
carriers in the aeronautical bands at any location in the cable
distribution system and the maximum of those average powers measured
over a 2.5 kHz bandwidth as described in the introductory paragraph to
this rule section;
(e) The geographical coordinates (in NAD83) of a point near the
center of the system, together with the distance (in kilometers) from
the designated point to the most remote point of the plant, existing or
planned, that defines a circle enclosing the entire plant;
(f) Certification that the monitoring procedure used is in
compliance with Sec. 76.614 or description of the routine monitoring
procedure to be used; and
(g) For MVPDs subject to Sec. 76.611, the cumulative signal
leakage index derived under Sec. 76.611(a)(1) or the results of
airspace measurements derived under Sec. 76.611(a)(2), including a
description of the method by which compliance with the basic signal
leakage criteria is achieved and the method of calibrating the
measurement equipment.
(h) Aeronautical Frequency Notifications, FCC Form 321, shall be
personally signed either electronically or manually by the operator; by
one of the partners, if the operator is a partnership; by an officer,
if the operator is a corporation; by a member who is an officer, if the
operator is an unincorporated association; or by any duly authorized
employee of the operator.
(i) Aeronautical Frequency Notifications, FCC Form 321, may be
signed by the operator's attorney in case of the operator's physical
disability or of his absence from the United States. The attorney shall
in that event separately set forth the reasons why the FCC Form 321 was
not signed by the operator. In addition, if any matter is stated on the
basis of the attorney's belief only (rather than the attorney's
knowledge), the attorney shall separately set forth the reasons for
believing that such statements are true.
(j) The FCC Registration Number (FRN).
OMB Control Number: 3060-0332.
Title: Section 76.614, Cable Television System Regular Monitoring,
and Section 76.1706, Signal Leakage Logs and Repair Records.
Form Number: Not applicable.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,000 respondents; 5,000
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167-0.5 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement;
Recordkeeping requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in
47 U.S.C. 302 and 303.
Total Annual Burden: 3,502 hours.
Total Annual Costs: None.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this collection of information.
Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised
proposed information collection from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cable Television Technical and
Operational Requirements, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This
rulemaking proposes to revise information collection 3060-0332 which
supports the Commission's signal leakage monitoring, logging and repair
rules that are codified at 47 CFR 76.614 and 76.1706, as required by
the obligation to manage the radio frequency spectrum, as codified at
47 U.S.C. 302 and 303. Currently, Sec. 76.614 requires cable operators
to monitor for leaks which exceed a particular threshold. This
threshold was designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum
from interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt
a lower threshold for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air
[[Page 61354]]
users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.
The NPRM proposes to create a digital equivalency for the
Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules are designed to
capture the same respondents previously covered by the Commission's
analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are transitioning, to
digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency is designed to
take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a result, absent
external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not change as a
result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or decrease to the
hourly burden). However, widespread industry consolidation has resulted
in fewer, though larger, respondents, resulting in a decrease in the
total number of estimated responses.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0433.
Title: Basic Signal Leakage Performance Report, FCC Form 320.
Form Number: FCC Form 320.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,550 respondents; 5,550
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement;
Recordkeeping requirement; Annual reporting requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in
47 U.S.C. 302 and 303.
Total Annual Burden: 111,000 hours.
Total Annual Costs: None.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality with this collection of information.
Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking approval for this revised
proposed information collection from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). On August 3, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-217; FCC 12-86. This rulemaking
proposes to revise information collection 3060-0433 which supports the
Commission's cumulative signal leakage calculation and reporting rules
that would be codified at 47 CFR 76.611 and 76.1803, as required by the
obligation to manage the radio frequency spectrum, as codified at 47
U.S.C. 302 and 303. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Federal Communications Commission is proposing that operators of
digital cable systems calculate and report leakage at different
thresholds than those required of analog systems. Currently, Sec.
76.611 requires operators of coaxial-cable television systems to
tabulate leaks above a certain threshold, and prohibits them from
operating if the accumulated leaks exceed a particular number. These
thresholds were designed to protect over-the-air users of the spectrum
from interference from analog cable systems. The NPRM proposes to adopt
a lower thresholds for digital systems in order to provide over-the-air
users of the spectrum with an equivalent level of protection.
The NPRM does not propose that the form submitted pursuant to
Section 76.1803 be changed. The NPRM proposes to create a digital
equivalency for the Commission's analog rules. As a result, these rules
are designed to capture the same respondents previously covered by the
Commission's analog rules, but who have transitioned, or are
transitioning, to digital operation. Further, this digital equivalency
is designed to take an equivalent amount of time to fulfill. As a
result, absent external factors, the hourly estimated burden will not
change as a result of this NPRM (there will not be an increase or
decrease to the hourly burden). However, widespread industry
consolidation has resulted in fewer, though larger, respondents,
resulting in a decrease in the total number of estimated responses.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we propose
to update our cable television technical rules to facilitate the cable
industry's widespread transition from analog to digital transmission
systems. Specifically, we seek comment on our proposals to modernize
and modify the Commission's proof-of-performance rules \1\ and basic
signal leakage performance criteria.\2\ In addition, we propose
modifications throughout Part 76 to remove outdated language, correct
citations, and make other minor or non-substantive updates. This NPRM
promotes the goals of Executive Order 13579 and the Commission's plan
adopted thereto, whereby the Commission analyzes rules that may be
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and
determines whether any such regulations should be modified,
streamlined, expanded, or repealed.\3\ As set forth below, we seek to
adopt clear and effective rules that reflect technological advancements
in the cable television industry, and apply them to cable operators in
a way that is minimally burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 47 CFR 76.601, 605, 609, 1704, 1705, and 76.1713.
\2\ See 47 CFR 76.610 through 620, 76.615(a)(12), 76.1706,
76.1803 through 1804.
\3\ See Executive Order No. 13579, section 2, 76 FR 41587 (July
11, 2011); Final Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,
Public Notice, 2012 WL 1851335 (rel. May 18, 2012) (also available
at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0521/DOC-314166A1.doc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
2. The cable television industry is rapidly transitioning to
digital service. The vast majority of cable system operators offer
digital service,\4\ and several cable system operators have already
migrated to ``all-digital'' service.\5\ Today, more than 80 percent of
cable customers subscribe to some level of digital service, and that
percentage is expected to increase to 84 percent by the end of this
year.\6\ Cable television operators' transition to more efficient
digital technology has freed up their limited bandwidth so they can
offer new and improved products and services, such as high-definition
(``HD'') video programming, high-speed Internet access, and digital
voice services.\7\ For this reason, we expect most cable
[[Page 61355]]
operators will eventually transition to all-digital systems.\8\
Accordingly, in this NPRM, we propose revisions and updates to our
technical standards that would apply to the operation of ``all-
digital'' and ``hybrid'' cable systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While digital service has become the most prevalent cable
service, most cable systems that offer digital service still
maintain some analog channel offerings. These cable systems are
called ``hybrid'' systems.
\5\ We note, for example, that BendBroadband and RCN have
completed their transition to all-digital service, and Comcast and
Cablevision are rapidly transitioning to all-digital service. See
Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part
76 of the Commission's Rules, Fifth Report and Order, FCC 12-59, 77
FR 36178 at 36183, para. 13, n.58, June 18, 2012 (``Viewability
Sunset Order''). Comcast expects to have completed transitioning to
all-digital service in 50% of its footprint by the end of 2012. See
Comcast Comments in MB Docket No. 11-169 at 4.
\6\ See SNL Kagan, ``Video growth enjoys seasonal lift in Q1;
service providers notch sub gains,'' (May 16, 2012) (``More than 80%
of basic subs are now digital.''); SNL Kagan, ``SNL Kagan's 10-Year
Cable TV Projections,'' (Jul. 28, 2011). SNL Kagan projects that the
percentage of cable subscribers subscribing to digital cable service
will reach about 84 percent by year-end 2012, 88 percent by year-end
2013, 91 percent by year-end 2014, and 93 percent by year-end 2015.
Id. See also NCTA's statistics, available at http://www.ncta.com/statistics.aspx (last visited June 9, 2012) (indicating an 80.2%
digital penetration rate (the percentage of total cable video
customers that subscribe to a digital tier of cable service)).
\7\ See, e.g., Viewability Sunset Order, 77 FR at 36185, para.
16. See also NCTA News Release, ``Cable's Digital Transformation
Providing Consumers with Advanced Technology, Lower Prices and
Enhanced Competition,'' (dated Jul. 29, 2009), available at http://www.ncta.com/ReleaseType/MediaRelease/Cables-Digital-Transformation-Providing-Consumers-with-Advanced-Technology-Lower-Prices-and-Enhanced.aspx.
\8\ See, e.g., Viewability Sunset Order, 77 FR at 36178, para.
13. An all-digital cable system offers only digital service to its
subscribers, while a hybrid cable system offers both analog and
digital cable service to its subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. We specifically examine several of our technical rules ranging
from those that ensure cable customers receive a good quality signal to
those that protect spectrum users from interference by cable systems.
This examination is necessary because our cable television technical
rules were largely established when analog technology was predominant
and digital technology was rare. As a result, our current rules treat
the use of digital technology as an exception rather than the rule. For
example, our current proof-of-performance (or signal quality) rules
permit cable operators that use ``non-conventional'' technologies
(i.e., non-analog) to file individual waivers in which the Commission
might substitute alternative technical standards to ensure a good
quality signal.\9\ The Commission has received several such petitions
based on cable operators transitioning to all-digital operation.\10\
Instead of addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis, however, we
believe that it is necessary to establish clear and generally
applicable technical rules governing the signal quality of digital
channels. In the cumulative signal leakage context, our existing rules
require multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) operating
coaxial cable systems to protect certain aeronautical frequencies from
interference by analog signals, but provide no guidance about how to
provide aeronautical protection from their digital signals.
Additionally, we address numerous technical rules that have become
outdated as a result of external factors. By addressing the gaps in our
rules arising from these industry changes, we intend to provide
operators with greater certainty regarding the standards that must be
met in order to establish a good quality signal. In addition, updating
our rules will help protect aeronautical distress and safety
frequencies from interference and, at the same time, allow operators to
utilize their spectrum more efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 47 CFR 76.605(b).
\10\ See, e.g., RCN Corporation Petition for Special Relief,
CSR-8166 and CSR-8301-Z (2010), Bend Cable Communications, LLC,
Petition for Special Relief, CSR-8294-Z (2010), Petition of the City
of Burlington, VT, D/B/A Burlington Telecom, for Relief from Proof
of Performance Testing, CSR-8273-Z (2009), Massillon Cable TV, Inc.
and Clear Picture, Inc., Petition for Special Relief, CSR-8274-Z
(2010), Jackson Energy Authority Petition for Special Relief, CSR-
6936-Z (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proof-of-Performance. The Commission has maintained technical
standards since 1972 to govern the signal quality cable television
systems deliver to consumers.\11\ Our rules focus on the electrical
characteristics of analog television signals and set thresholds for
numerous aspects of the signals when measured at subscribers' terminals
to ensure that subscribers receive good quality cable signals.\12\
These standards, plus the requirement that operators test their systems
and maintain the results of these tests in their public files, are
collectively called ``proof-of-performance'' rules. The Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 added
section 624(e) of the Communications Act to establish a statutory
mandate for cable TV signal quality standards.\13\ The statute requires
the Commission to ``update such standards periodically to reflect
improvements in technology.'' \14\ Since 1992, the Commission has
adopted slight modifications to these rules,\15\ but the underlying
assumption of the rules, analog transmission technology, remains
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television
Systems, Report and Order, 37 FR 3252, Feb. 12, 1972.
\12\ Specific signal characteristics that the rules address
include aural carrier center frequency location and relative signal
level; visual signal carrier signal level, amplitude characteristics
of each subcarrier, and signal level to noise ratio; terminal
isolation, hum modulation, and color carrier signal characteristics.
See 47 CFR 76.605; Cable Television Technical and Operational
Requirements, Report and Order, FCC 92-61, 57 FR 11000, April 1,
1992 (``1992 Order''), aff'd in part and modified in part,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 92-508, 57 FR 61009, Dec. 23, 1992
(``1992 Reconsideration Order'').
\13\ 47 U.S.C. 544(e) (requiring the establishment of ``minimum
technical standards relating to cable systems' technical operation
and signal quality'').
\14\ Id.
\15\ See, e.g., Metric Conversion of Parts 1, 2, 18, 21, 22, 23,
25, 36, 61, 6368, 69, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 87, 90, and 94 of the
Commission's Rules, Order, 58 FR 44952, Aug. 25, 1993 (converting
the Commission's rules to metric); Implementation of Section 17 of
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics
Equipment, First Report and Order, 59 FR 25339, May 16, 1994
(requiring cable systems to adopt the EIA IS-132 standard channel
plan); Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Extend
Interference Protection to the Marine and Aeronautical Distress and
Safety Frequency 406.25 MHz, Report and Order, 69 FR 57862, Sept.
28, 2004 (``406 MHz Order'') (requiring cable systems to adopt the
CEA-542-B channel plan and removing various expired clauses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. When the Commission adopted the current technical standards in
1992, it declined to extend the standards to the then-nascent practice
of delivering cable television using digital signals.\16\ The
Commission explained that technical standards for ``digital
transmission techniques * * * may be vastly different than those for
analog NTSC signals,'' but that it ``retain[s] authority * * * to
address this issue at a later time should the adoption of technical
standards * * * appear necessary or desirable.'' \17\ Since the analog
rules were adopted in 1992, an increasing number of cable television
systems have adopted digital delivery technologies. The majority of
digital signals today are being delivered digitally via quadrature
amplitude modulation (``QAM'') over hybrid fiber-coax (``HFC'') cable
plant.\18\ Non-QAM digital cable systems have also emerged, though in
far smaller numbers than QAM/HFC systems, and primarily utilize
Internet Protocol (``IP'') delivery over either fiber-optic cable or
DSL-based transmission \19\ over twisted-pair copper wires. Most
recently, QAM-based operators have begun trials of DOCSIS-based \20\ IP
delivery of cable service over HFC cable plant.\21\ Therefore, in this
NPRM, we propose to establish proof-of performance rules that
specifically address these advances in digital technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 1992 Order.
\17\ Id. NTSC refers to the analog television system developed
by the National Television System Committee and was the standard
employed for analog broadcast television and analog cable television
in the United States.
\18\ Digital (QAM) transmission differs from analog (NTSC)
transmission in two key ways. First, the digital carrier encodes
multiple video and audio streams as well as associated meta-data as
a single data stream which is parsed by the subscriber's equipment.
Second, as a radio frequency signal, the QAM signal no longer
contains the three distinct sub-carriers that make up an analog
television signal, but instead appears in the spectrum in what is
commonly referred to as a ``haystack.'' Therefore, concepts such as
the aural carrier separation from the video carrier are simply no
longer applicable as these carriers are no longer distinct radio
frequency components. Further, even where a signal characteristic
could be measured for both an analog and digital signal, such as
signal to noise ratio, the level of performance required for a
digital QAM signal to be received and properly decoded is not the
same as the signal to noise ratio required for the visual carrier of
an analog television signal. See Walter Ciciora, et al., Modern
Cable Television Technology 148-151 (2nd Ed. 2004).
\19\ See 1992 Order. ``DSL'' stands for Digital Subscriber Line
and is the technology employed by many MVPDs that utilize telephone
networks to deliver video signals. Video is typically provisioned
over VDSL (Very-high-bitrate DSL), providing up to 52 Mbps
downstream or ADSL2+ (Asynchronous DSL version 2+), providing up to
24 Mbps downstream.
\20\ DOCSIS is the Data Over Cable Service Interface
Specification, and is the standard by which cable operators provide
cable modem service to customers. See H. Newton, Newton's Telecom
Dictionary 265, (20th ed. 2004).
\21\ See Sean Portnoy, Comcast Testing out IPTV Service at MIT
to Compete Better Against Online Video Rivals, ZDNet (May 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61356]]
6. Cable Signal Leakage--Protection of Aeronautical Channels. In
addition to the minimum technical standards for signal quality, the
Commission maintains a comprehensive testing, reporting, and repair
regime to address the issue of interference caused by unintentional
emissions from MVPDs. Established in 1984 after the Commission convened
an advisory committee on the issue, the signal leakage rules require
MVPDs that operate coaxial cable plants (specifically, what are
commonly referred to as ``cable systems'' as well as additional ``non-
cable'' \22\ systems) and use the designated aeronautical
communications bands at 108 to 137 MHz and 225 to 400 MHz to notify the
Commission prior to doing so and to begin a regimen of routine
monitoring to identify and correct any instances of signal leakage.
These rules were established prior to the current widespread deployment
of digital cable technology by cable and non-cable operators, and must
be updated to provide adequate protection to aeronautical frequencies.
Specifically, with regard to the ``offset'' requirement for analog
signals, the Commission must account for the inability of digital
signals to be ``offset'' relative to aeronautical channels and the
implications this has on the interference potential of the signals. In
this NPRM, we propose adjustments to our various signal leakage
thresholds and modify our procedures for systems utilizing digital
transmission to provide adequate protection of the aeronautical
channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Non-cable'' systems are those MVPDs that are exempted
from the Commission's legal definition of a cable system, but that
are subject to some the Commission's cable technical rules based on
their technical characteristics. See 47 CFR 76.5(a). Examples of
these systems include facilities that serve only to retransmit the
television signals of one or more television broadcast stations
(such as master antenna systems), facilities that serve subscribers
without using any public right-of-way (such as private cable
operations, hotels, motels, prisons, and so on), and ``open video
systems'' that comply with Section 653 of the Communications Act.
See 47 CFR 76.5(a)(1) through (5). These systems are required to
comply with the Commission's aeronautical frequency notification and
signal leakage rules where technically applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
7. Below, we seek comment on proposed modifications to our cable
television technical rules to specifically address the provision of
digital cable service. The Commission especially seeks comment on the
costs and benefits of the rule changes proposed below, along with data
supporting the assessments. The Commission further welcomes comment on
any other technical rules that may have become unworkable or
ineffective as a result of the transition to digital, the
diversification of transmission technologies now employed by the cable
industry, or other developments in technology.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 47 CFR 76.601 through 640 (``Subpart K--Technical
Standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Proof of Performance
8. Our proof-of-performance rules require a cable operator to
provide a good quality signal to its customers and enable the
Commission to evaluate compliance with this requirement.\24\ These
rules include the following: Section 76.601 (testing requirement),
Sec. 76.605 (technical standards), Sec. 76.609 (methods and
requirements for performing the tests), Sec. Sec. 76.1704 and 76.1705
(recordkeeping requirements), and Sec. 76.1713 (process for resolving
complaints regarding signal quality).\25\ In keeping with our statutory
mandate to update our proof-of-performance rules to reflect
improvements in technology,\26\ we seek comment on updating these rules
as they apply to QAM digital systems and non-QAM digital systems. In
addition, we consider testing and recordkeeping issues, such as how
many points in a system must be tested, how many channels on a system
must be tested, and certain ancillary issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We note that the Commission's proof-of-performance rules
are used not just by the Commission, but also by local franchising
authorities who frequently operate as the first line in addressing
constituent complaints against a local cable operator. Local
Franchising Authorities enter into agreements with cable operators
(among other service providers in their communities), and establish
the conditions under which cable operators may use public rights-of-
way and other community resources. As a result of this contractual
relationship, cable operators may have obligations to local
franchising authorities in addition to those required by the
Commission. Further, while some franchising has transitioned to the
state level, local franchising authorities typically retain control
over their local public rights-of-way. See 1992 Order at 2023, para.
5.
\25\ See 47 CFR 76.601, 605, 609, 1704, 1705, and 76.1713. We
also note that the Commission has placed certain technical
performance requirements on digital cable operators with more than
750 MHz of activated channel capacity as part of their required
support for unidirectional cable products. See 47 CFR
76.640(b)(1)(i) (requiring compliance with SCTE 40 2003: ``Digital
Cable Network Interface Standard''). We draw on this precedent in
our proposal regarding QAM-based digital cable proof-of-performance
requirements.
\26\ See 47 U.S.C. 544(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In this NPRM, we specifically address the issue of how to
establish digital proof of performance standards that are similar in
function to the analog proof of performance standards we adopted in the
1992 Order.\27\ At the time of the 1992 Order, analog cable
transmission was predominant and possessed uniform characteristics,
which made adoption of technical standards relatively straightforward.
As mentioned above, today, QAM transmission is the dominant form of
digital cable transmission. Unlike analog cable transmission, however,
QAM is not uniform and may appear in a variety of configurations such
as 64 QAM, 256 QAM, and potentially 1024 QAM, each requiring different
performance standards.\28\ Further, non-QAM digital systems using such
technologies as VDSL, ADSL2+, or transmitting via fiber-optic cables,
now make up an increasing percentage of digital systems. We are also
confronted with the potential decoupling of the concept of signals of
``good technical quality'' (i.e., a highly reliable signal) from the
concept of signals of ``good visual quality.'' In analog transmission,
operators would replicate the exact electrical signal provided by the
programming provider and the primary factor impacting signal quality
was the quality of the electrical transmission (i.e., a highly reliable
signal provides good visual quality). In contrast, with digital
transmission, operators will often re-compress the signal to relieve
capacity constraints or support different devices.\29\ If the operator
is too aggressive in this re-compression, or if the signal processing
equipment in the head-end introduces errors, a viewer may perceive a
poor quality of video even though the transmission is perfect.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should consider qualitative
measures to assess consumer perceptions of video quality. We seek
specific comment on the pros and cons of adopting subjective consumer
perception measures as opposed to or in addition to adopting objective
measurements for assessing signal quality. Overall, we seek to develop
the optimal approach to ensure that digital cable subscribers receive
good quality
[[Page 61357]]
signals, while imposing a minimal regulatory burden on cable operators,
and we seek comment on the costs and benefits associated with our
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 47 CFR 76.601, 76.605, and 76.609. These standards
measure the electrical characteristics of an analog cable signal on
coaxial cable.
\28\ Quadrature Amplitude Modulation, or QAM is a sophisticated
modulation technique, using variations in signal amplitude and
phase, that allows multiple bits to form a single ``symbol,'' which
is then impressed on a single sine wave. ``Quadrature'' refers to
the fact that four distinct amplitude levels are defined. 16 QAM
creates a symbol of 4 bits through 16 distinct signal points, or
variations in amplitude and phase (2 raised to the 4th power equals
16). 64 QAM, by extension, conveys 6 bits through 64 distinct signal
points (2 raised to the 6th power equals 64). 256 QAM conveys 8 bits
per symbol, and 1024 QAM conveys 10. See H. Newton, Newton's Telecom
Dictionary 674, (20th ed. 2004).
\29\ We note that cable operators receive digital signals that
are already compressed; therefore, any alteration to the signals is
considered recompression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standards for QAM-Based Digital Cable Systems
10. We propose to adopt the standard established by the Society of
Cable Telecommunications Engineers, the SCTE 40 Digital Cable Network
Interface Standard, as the signal quality standard for QAM-based
digital cable systems and, in addition, propose to require testing and
documentation that demonstrates compliance with the metrics associated
with this standard.\30\ We tentatively conclude that the relatively
straightforward SCTE 40 standard provides the best source of the
digital proof-of-performance metrics. This standard is currently
incorporated into our rules supporting unidirectional digital cable
televisions and products, and is thus already followed by a significant
portion of QAM digital cable operators.\31\ In the unidirectional
CableCARD proceeding, the Commission, consumer electronics industry,
and cable industry determined that standardizing certain attributes of
the network would be necessary for such products to be successful.\32\
The Commission noted that such digital standards were already supported
by some systems, with widespread adoption forthcoming, and that such
standards encapsulated the common performance metrics well.\33\ As a
result, selection of SCTE 40 2003 was unopposed by any party.\34\ For
these same reasons, we believe that selecting an existing industry-
developed standard and well-focused set of measurements for digital
cable places little to no additional burden on cable operators yet will
ensure that consumers receive good signal quality. The SCTE has
subsequently updated the SCTE 40 standard and it has received the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approval.\35\ Accordingly,
we tentatively conclude that we should incorporate the current version
of that standard, SCTE 40 2011, into our rules as minimum signal
quality standards for QAM digital cable service. We seek comment on our
proposal and tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on any
alternative standards that could be used to ensure a good quality
digital signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers ANSI/SCTE
40 2011: Digital Cable Network Interface Standard, available at
http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/standards/SCTE_40_2011.pdf
(``SCTE 40 2011''). SCTE 40 2011 describes the basic technical
operational characteristics for digital cable systems using QAM,
including such characteristics as relative channel power, carrier-
to-noise ratios, and adjacent-channel characteristics.
\31\ See 47 CFR 76.640(b)(1)(i). The rules apply to cable
systems operating at 750 MHz or greater.
\32\ See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Report
and Order, FCC 03-225, 68 FR 66734, Nov. 28, 2003 (``CableCARD
Order'') (incorporated for use by 47 CFR 76.640(b)(1)(i)). In the
unidirectional CableCARD proceeding, the Commission incorporated
SCTE 40 2003 into its rules. In Section III.D below, we propose to
update our incorporation for Sec. 76.640 to the 2011 version of
this standard as well, as these versions are substantively the same,
and only minor updates to certain parameters, administrative
clarifications, and ANSI certification have been changed.
\33\ See CableCARD Order.
\34\ Id.
\35\ See ANSI/SCTE 40 2011 Digital Cable Network Interface
Standard, American National Standards Institute, available at http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI/SCTE+40+2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. We continue to believe that testing and documentation is
essential to ensuring compliance and permitting effective enforcement
of our proof-of-performance rules. Therefore, in addition to adopting
SCTE 40 2011 as the standard for digital proof-of-performance, we
propose to require QAM-based cable operators to document the successful
completion of proof-of performance testing to demonstrate compliance.
SCTE 40 2011 contains tables with entries detailing the metrics for
compliance. We tentatively conclude that operators should perform a
test for each of the entries located on those tables dealing with the
delivery of cable video signals, but not those dealing with upstream or
downstream data performance.\36\ We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Additionally, similar to the analog context, while
operators are required to comply with the standard on every applicable
channel, we only propose to require operators to test all channels and
document their compliance with the standard's parameters that pertain
to the relationships between channels, and to test and document a
subset of channels for compliance with the standard's parameters that
pertain to individual channel characteristics. Thus, we propose to
require the Adjacent Channel Levels (SCTE 40 2011, Table 6) and Nominal
Power Levels (SCTE 40 2011, Table 5) to be tested across every QAM
channel on the system. Similarly, we propose that the channel-specific
standards for normal video channels contained in the Forward
Application Transport table (SCTE 40 2011, Table 4) \37\ be tested only
on a subset of channels. We provide more specifics on the number of
channels to be sampled, as well as other aspects of testing and
recordkeeping, below. We seek comment from cable operators that have
implemented periodic testing procedures based on the SCTE 40 standard
regarding their experiences with implementing this metric and what
procedures they have put into place to measure and ensure compliance
with this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ We observe that these parameters primarily relate to two-
way services, such as data service and video-on-demand, which we do
not propose including within the testing requirements. In SCTE 40,
these parameters are contained in Table 2 and Table 3, the Forward
and Reverse Data Channel (FDC and RDC) Tables. Table 1, the Digital
Cable Network Frequency Bands, indicates the frequency bands in
which various channels may operate, and while compliance with this
provision is required, testing and documentation of compliance is
not. See SCTE 40 2011 at Tables 1, 2, 3.
\37\ SCTE 40 defines the Forward Application Transport (FAT)
Channel as ``the data channel carried from the headend to the
terminal device in a modulated channel at a rate of 26.97 or 38.81
Mbps. MPEG-2 transport is used to multiplex video, audio, and data
into the FAT channel. The FAT Channel is also considered the ``In-
band'' channel. The FAT channel is used for MPEG-2 compressed video
and audio.'' See SCTE 40 2011 at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We seek comment on whether to supplement, or otherwise modify,
the SCTE 40 2011 standard for purposes of establishing our digital
signal quality standard. In particular, we seek comment on whether we
should adopt elements of the SCTE's recent Fourth Edition of its
Measurement Recommended Practices for Cable Systems (SCTE Recommended
Practice).\38\ The SCTE Recommended Practice provides a comprehensive
and extensive set of best practices covering nearly every potential
aspect of cable operation for both analog and digital cable operators.
More specifically, the SCTE Recommended Practice provides guidance to
cable system operators about how to comply with the SCTE 40 standard.
We recognize that, given the scope of the SCTE Recommended Practice, it
may be more than is necessary to ensure digital cable consumers receive
good quality signals. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether any
particular parts of the SCTE Recommended Practice would be effective as
an enhancement to the SCTE 40 2011. In addition, we seek comment on
whether other metrics, such as the measurement of visual signal quality
or the MPEG stream would be appropriate as an enhancement to the SCTE
40 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, SCTE
Measurement Recommended Practices for Cable Systems (4th ed., 2012)
(``SCTE Measurement Recommended Practice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-QAM Cable Systems and Qualitative Signal Quality
13. As noted above, ready sources of widely-followed industry
standards exist on which we can base our rules for
[[Page 61358]]
digital cable transmission via QAM on hybrid fiber-coax systems. In
contrast, non-QAM systems such as the fiber optic, hybrid fiber/twisted
pair, and the VDSL and ADSL2+ systems do not possess uniform
characteristics. Accordingly, unlike for QAM systems, the SCTE 40
standard is not relevant to non-QAM systems, nor do we have available
equivalent industry standards or guidance for each particular new
technology. Therefore, we seek comment on how to establish proof of
performance standards for non-QAM systems that are functionally
comparable to the proof of performance standards proposed above for QAM
systems. Similarly, we seek comment on the testing and documentation
that should be required to demonstrate compliance with performance
standards for non-QAM systems. If we are not able to adopt a uniform
proof-of-performance standard for non-QAM systems, we propose, as
discussed below, to establish a case-by-case approach for evaluating
non-QAM system signal quality.
14. We seek comment on whether there are appropriate industry
standards against which to determine signal quality in non-QAM systems.
In the absence of any industry-developed standards, is it possible to
formulate a uniform signal quality standard, or set of standards, that
could apply to the various types of non-QAM systems? In the absence of
a uniform standard for measuring the electrical signal characteristics
for non-QAM systems, we seek comment on alternative means to
objectively measure and evaluate whether a non-QAM digital cable system
is providing a ``good quality signal.'' We also ask commenters to
address whether objective methods exist to establish if ``good quality
signals'' are reaching cable subscribers of non-QAM systems, either as
a complement to, or in place of, regulating carrier signal quality,
including: (1) An analysis of errors in the transmission of the
compressed video stream, (2) a means by which to measure perceived
visual signal quality, (3) a combination of the two, or (4) some
alternative method. For example, we ask commenters to consider whether
a standard regarding transmission errors would be useful in addressing
audio-related problems, such as a lack of synchronization of the audio
and video signal, or closed captioning related problems, such as poor
or missing caption data. In this regard, we note that the vast majority
of cable systems encode video using MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 AVC.\39\ We seek
comment on the potential of establishing standards based on the
transmission of the compressed video stream and whether the technical
qualities of the decoded signal, such as bit errors in the MPEG stream,
are a possible substitute for or supplement to regulating carrier
signal quality. With regard to perceived visual signal quality, we note
the problem of ``pixelization'' or ``tearing'' \40\ of a video image
that may occur as a result of bandwidth constraints or other non-
transmission related network conditions. We seek comment on the
suitability of testing visual signal quality, the availability of
objective criteria, the availability of equipment, and the desirability
of using metrics regarding perceived visual signal quality. Are there
any entities currently analyzing and developing standards for visual
signal quality? If so, please describe in detail. Finally, we seek
comment on whether instead of, or in addition to, adopting objective
technical requirements, there are other approaches we should consider
to establish standards concerning non-QAM cable operators' signal
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AVC are standards for digitally encoding
and compressing video and other signals developed by the Motion
Picture Experts Group. MPEG-2 is used by terrestrial broadcast
television stations and most QAM-based cable operators with respect
to their traditional linear services; MPEG-4 is used by most IPTV
operators.
\40\ ``Pixelization'' and ``tearing'' describe the appearance to
viewers of an underlying loss of signal. Pixelization appears as
large blocks of the video image that either turn black or cease
updating. Tearing appears as the moving portion of an image
continues its motion over a background which has ceased updating,
causing part of the image to appear separated from that immediately
adjacent to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. To the extent that any type of uniform objective measurement is
not possible to encompass the variety of existing or future non-QAM
system platforms, we propose to establish a case-by-case approach
whereby the non-QAM digital cable systems would demonstrate that they
are providing a ``good quality signal'' to their customers by
submitting a plan for Commission approval. As proposed for QAM systems,
the non-QAM system proof-of-performance plan must include a testing and
documentation component. This case-by-case approach would replace the
existing case-by-case approach for cable systems using ``non-
conventional'' techniques.\41\ We propose to require each non-QAM
digital cable system to submit its own proof-of-performance plan for
ensuring subscribers receive good quality signals.\42\ We envision
these plans would contain a set of parameters, whether electrical
signal characteristics, MPEG stream characteristics or other metrics to
demonstrate signal quality.\43\ We seek comment on whether there are
minimum components that each performance plan should contain. We seek
to establish objective criteria that the Commission would be able to
readily evaluate and that the public could comment upon. For example,
should each plan contain an explanation of the technical parameters of
the equipment employed, nominal error rates, or other common criteria?
Are there objective criteria that are common across all non-QAM systems
and that can be used to evaluate proof-of-performance submissions? We
would expect that each non-QAM system will have their own internal
signal quality guidelines and may wish to use these guidelines as the
basis for their proof-of-performance plan. We seek comment on how the
Commission should evaluate the adequacy of performance plan
submissions. Should we require operators to send a copy of their plan
to local franchise authorities (LFAs) with jurisdiction over the system
and to provide a mechanism for LFAs to comment on such plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Currently, the Commission's rules provide that cable
systems using non-conventional techniques (today, this applies to
any non-analog cable service) may be granted relief from the
technical standards subject to assurances that subscribers to such
systems will receive an equivalent level of ``good quality
service.'' See 47 CFR 76.605(b).
\42\ We propose that these showings be made electronically,
through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System, through a
similar process to that implemented for other Cable Special Relief
(CSR) petitions. See Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1
Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission
Organization, Report and Order, FCC 11-16, 76 FR 24383, May 2, 2011.
\43\ This submission should also contain an explanation of the
parameters, including how they are measured and documented, and the
means by which these parameters are evaluated by system engineers to
ensure good signal quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Testing and Recordkeeping
16. In addition to proposing to adopt a new standard for QAM-based
digital cable systems and seeking comment on how to determine signal
quality on non-QAM systems, we also propose some minor updates to our
current proof of performance testing and recordkeeping rules. Some of
these proposed changes would only affect digital systems and others
would also apply to analog systems.
a. Number of Channels Tested
17. We propose to simplify the formula by which both analog and QAM
digital operators determine how many channels must be tested to ensure
compliance with the proof-of-
[[Page 61359]]
performance rules regarding channel-specific characteristics.
Currently, a formula exists for very small systems (systems with less
than 300 MHz of activated spectrum) that requires a minimum of four
channels and then adds channels as various additional blocks of
spectrum are activated.\44\ We continue to believe that testing every
channel is unnecessary, except for those limited tests regarding
adjacent channel power limits and nominal power levels, and that
testing the channel-specific characteristics is particularly burdensome
for small systems with more limited resources. Therefore, we propose to
revise the testing formula to reflect a more simplified approach: a
cable system with a total activated channel capacity up to 550 MHz will
be required to test 5 channels, and any system with a total activated
channel capacity of 550 MHz or greater must test 10 channels. We
believe that this proposal simplifies compliance for all operators and
will continue to ensure that a sufficient representative sample of
channels is tested to accurately reflect the experience consumers
receive. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 47 CFR 76.601(b)(2). Currently, the Commission uses a
formula which requires every system to test a minimum of 4 channels
for the first 100 MHz, plus one channel for each additional 100 MHz
of cable system upper frequency limit (or fraction thereof). For
example, a 750 MHz system is required to test a total of 11 channels
(4 channels for the first 100 MHz plus 7 additional channels for
each additional 100 MHz block of spectrum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Although cable operators are increasingly transitioning to all-
digital systems, most cable systems still deliver both analog and
digital channels.\45\ Therefore, where only a sampling of channels is
called for, we propose to require operators to test each transmission
format in proportion to its presence on the system. We propose that
systems that deliver both analog and digital channels would be required
to divide their proof-of-performance obligation between analog and
digital channels proportionally with the percentage of the system that
is allocated, by MHz, to each type of transmission, except that in no
circumstances would fewer than two channels of a particular type be
tested.\46\ We seek comment on this proposal. We believe that there are
no hybrid systems operating partially analog and partially non-QAM, or
partially QAM and partially non-QAM. We seek comment on whether any
such systems exist and, if so, how we should address this situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ For example, we note that as of December 31, 2010,
approximately 92 percent of cable subscribers were served by a
hybrid analog-digital cable system. See Carriage of Digital
Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission's Rules, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Declaratory Order, FCC 12-18, 77 FR 9187, Feb. 16, 2012.
\46\ For example, a 750 MHz system would be required to test 10
channels under our proposal. Assuming this system maintains 36
channels of analog transmission and 80 channels of digital, the
percentage of the system allocated to analog would be 31%.
Therefore, we would expect the system to test 3 analog channels
against our analog standards, and 7 digital channels against our
digital standards. However, should the system maintain fewer than 23
analog channels (20% of its capacity by MHz), the operator would
continue to be required to test 2 analog channels until the system
transitions to all-digital operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Currently, our analog proof-of-performance rules only apply to
each NTSC or similar downstream cable television channel.\47\ As we
discuss above, we propose to require proof-of-performance testing on
all QAM channels (or a subset, as appropriate),\48\ and seek comment on
addressing non-QAM digital video channels. These comments should also
address switched-digital channels to the extent they deliver video
programming that is comparable to traditional, pre-scheduled video
programming on linear channels. Traditionally, the Commission has
excluded channels used for other purposes, such as video-on-demand and
cable modem service.\49\ However, in some cases multiple services
(e.g., both linear video and video-on-demand) may be combined in a
single QAM channel. We seek comment on which QAM channels are
appropriate to include in the testing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 47 CFR 76.605(a).
\48\ SCTE 40 2011 contains detailed specifications defining a
``channel'' for purposes of meeting the technical standards,
including that it be 6 MHz wide, operate in specific frequency
bands, be comprised of QAM carriers, and comply with numerous other
standards. See SCTE 40 2011 at 17.
\49\ At the time, the Commission observed that standards were
not available for the delivery of non-traditional services such as
pay-per-view or data services, but that operators would have a
``distinct incentive to fix'' any problems that occurred on these
services. See 1992 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Number of Test Points
20. Our current rules specify testing requirements for all cable
television systems, regardless of whether they are analog or
digital.\50\ Specifically, two times per year, a cable operator must
measure the technical characteristics contained in Sec. 76.605 at
specific points throughout its system.\51\ The ultimate number of
specific test points within a system is determined by the number of
subscribers to the system.\52\ Technological advancements, however,
have resulted in less clear distinctions among physical components that
make up a system or separate one system from another. This has resulted
in the potential for subscribers to be allocable to more than one
system. Additionally, the industry is increasingly moving toward
consolidating headends to form regional clusters. For example,
Verizon's fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) offering, FiOS, has largely done
away with the notion of local headends, utilizing region-wide
facilities instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 47 CFR 76.601(a) (``The operator of each cable television
system shall be responsible for insuring that each such system is
designed, installed, and operated in a manner that fully complies
with the provisions of this subpart.''); see also 47 CFR 76.5(a)
(defining a ``cable system or cable television system'').
\51\ 47 CFR 76.605.
\52\ See 47 CFR 76.601(b)(1). The rules also specify the number
of test points. Six test points are required for all systems with
1,000 to 12,500 subscribers. For systems with more than 12,500
subscribers, an additional test point is added for each multiple of
12,500 subscribers. Additionally, each portion of the system
separated by a non-physical link, such as microwave, must be tested.
The rules direct operators to separate the test points in a
geographically representative manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. We believe that the physical boundaries of a system--that is,
the separation of one system from another--are not generally relevant
to the purpose of proof-of-performance testing. Rather, the rules are
subscriber focused, and so long as good quality signals are being
delivered to subscribers, their specific origin need not be precisely
defined. We propose, however, to modify the rules for the number of
test points. While the Commission has preempted local franchising
authorities from establishing their own standards,\53\ local franchise
authorities (LFAs) retain control over their public rights of way and
have a much closer relationship with their cable operators and cable
customers than does the Commission. Therefore, we propose to require
that at least one test point, representative of the type of service
(taking into account system architecture, channel delivery, and other
technical characteristics) received by customers within that local
franchise area, be located within each LFA's jurisdiction. We seek
comment on the appropriate course of action if the number of LFAs
exceeds the number of test points required by the existing formula. For
example, should additional test points be added to the operator's
obligations to equal the total number of LFAs served by that system? We
seek to ensure that as system consolidation and technological
innovation lead to ever larger system footprints, that our rules
maintain the necessary geographic diversity and, at the same time,
ensure that subscribers across an operator's
[[Page 61360]]
system footprint receive good quality signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations Relative to the Advisability of Federal Preemption of
Cable Television Technical Standards or the Imposition of a
Moratorium on Nonfederal Standards, Report and Order, 39 FR 39050,
Nov. 5, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Recordkeeping
22. We propose to adopt recordkeeping obligations on digital cable
operators identical to those placed on analog cable operators. Section
76.1704(a) of our rules provides that proof-of-performance test results
shall be maintained on file at the operator's local business office for
at least five years and shall be made available for inspection by the
Commission or the local franchising authority, upon request.\54\ In
addition, Sec. 76.1700(a) of our rules, broadly referred to as the
public file obligations of a cable operator, provides that the operator
of a cable system shall either provide this information to the public
upon request or maintain a public inspection file containing this
information, depending on the size of the system.\55\ While we believe
that the current rule has been effective, we seek comment on what, if
any, changes should be made to our recordkeeping rules. For example, we
seek comment on whether the rules should be modified to make these
records more available or to alter the length of time records are
retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See 47 CFR 76.1704(a).
\55\ The operator of a cable system with fewer than 1,000
subscribers is exempt from these requirements. See 47 CFR
76.1700(a). The operator of a cable system having 1,000 to 5,000
subscribers must provide this information upon request. See id. The
operator of a cable system having 5,000 or more subscribers must
maintain this information in a public inspection file. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Other Issues
23. We seek input regarding the extent to which a cable system's
compliance with our technical standards depends on third parties. Are
there factors outside of a cable system's control that could result in
a degradation of signal quality? For example, to what extent does the
signal quality received by cable subscribers depend on the reliability
of networks controlled by third parties or on the programmer's original
encoding of the material? Can a cable system contract with third
parties to ensure compliance with our technical standards? What impact,
if any, should a cable system's reliance on third parties have on our
technical standards?
24. We also seek comment on what role, if any, set-top boxes should
play in the Commission's efforts to ensure consumers receive good
quality signals.\56\ There appears to be some industry confusion
regarding the proper role of set-top boxes in meeting a cable
operator's proof-of-performance obligations.\57\ In all-digital systems
where most or all televisions require a set-top box, is it desirable to
establish a testing regime which utilizes the output at the operator's
leased set-top boxes as the testing point to determine whether a good
quality signal is being delivered to subscribers? If so, do standards
exist for the connections consumer now generally use to connect digital
cable set-top boxes to televisions, such as HDMI and component video
cables? Further, how could we ensure that subscribers owning non-
operator-supplied set-top boxes or CableCARD-equipped televisions
receive ``good quality signals?'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See 47 CFR 76.605, Note 3 (``The requirements of this
section shall not apply to devices subject to the TV interface
device rules under part 15 of this chapter''). 47 CFR 15.3(e)
defines a ``cable system terminal device'' is a ``TV interface
device that serves, as its primary function, to connect a cable
system operated under part 76 of this chapter to a TV broadcast
receiver or other subscriber premise equipment. * * * '' Generally,
these are referred to as ``cable set-top boxes'' and are generally
leased by customers from their MVPD, but may be purchased at retail
as well. Rather than focusing on signal quality as determined by the
proof-of-performance rules, the Part 15 rules ensure that boxes do
not harm connected televisions or cause interference. See 47 CFR
15.115.
\57\ In the Matter of Pace Micro Technology PLC Petition for
Special and Interim Relief, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 1945 (MB 2004).
\58\ We note that in 2010 the Commission updated its rules
regarding CableCARDs, largely with respect to customer support-
related issues, but also with respect to some technical rules. See
Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Compatibility Between
Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Third Report and
Order, FCC 10-181, 76 FR 44279, July 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Finally, we also propose to rationalize the numbering scheme in
our rules to accommodate our proposed rule changes. Specifically, we
propose to relocate the analog proof of performance rules in a new
Sec. 76.605(b) and create Sec. 76.605(c) for digital rules.\59\
Section 76.605(a) will contain guidance for interpreting the rest of
the section, and Sec. 76.605(d) will contain an updated general signal
leakage provision previously located in Sec. 76.605(a)(12) that will
apply both to analog and digital systems.\60\ We also propose to
renumber Sec. 76.601, to consolidate the analog instructions under
Sec. 76.601(b)(2) and the digital instructions under Sec.
76.601(b)(3). We believe that these changes will make the rules easier
to read and follow. Additionally, we propose to update the signal-to-
noise requirements of a new Sec. 76.605(b)(7), formerly Sec.
76.605(a)(7),\61\ to reflect the completion of the transition to
digital television broadcasting by amending any reference to Grade B
Contour with a reference to the Noise-Limited Service Contour as the
applicable, regulatory equivalent for digital broadcasting.\62\
Finally, we propose to renumber the current Sec. 76.605(b) to Sec.
76.605(e), to be modified as detailed below. We seek comment on these
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 47 CFR 76.605.
\60\ We note that this general signal leakage requirement is
separate from the more stringent signal leakage requirements
pertaining to the aeronautical bands and discussed below. See
Section III.B; 47 CFR 76.610, et al.
\61\ 47 CFR 76.605(a)(7).
\62\ While the Grade B contour defined an analog television
station's service area, see 47 CFR 73.683(a), with the completion of
the full power digital television transition on June 12, 2009, there
are no longer any full power analog stations. Instead, as set forth
in Sec. 73.622(e), a station's DTV service area is defined as the
area within its noise-limited contour where its signal strength is
predicted to exceed the noise-limited service level. See 47 CFR
73.622(e). Accordingly, the Commission has treated a digital
station's noise limited service contour (NLSC) as the functional
equivalent of an analog station's Grade B contour. See, e.g.,
Implementation of Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension
and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 75 FR 72968, Nov. 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Cumulative Signal Leakage
26. MVPDs that operate coaxial cable plants (``coaxial cable
systems'') use frequencies allocated for myriad over-the-air services
within their system. Under ideal circumstances, those signals are
confined within the cable system and do not cause interference with the
over-the-air users of those frequencies. However, under certain
circumstances, a coaxial cable plant can ``leak'' and interfere with
over-the-air users of spectrum.\63\ The Commission began looking at the
issue of coaxial cable signal leakage in the 1970's, and in 1977
released a First Report and Order to address concerns that coaxial
cable plants could leak electromagnetic radiation that could interfere
with critical navigational and emergency frequencies.\64\ Specifically,
the Commission was concerned with interference to the aeronautical
radio frequency bands, located at 108 to 137 MHz and 225 to 400 MHz,
and that interference from leaks dispersed throughout the cable plant
would constructively combine to appear as a single, much larger leak to
receivers passing overhead. At the time, demonstrated incidents of
interference were rare.\65\ The order noted, however, that ``the major
reason for formulating the rules * * * is not to solve an existing
problem of crisis proportions.
[[Page 61361]]
Rather * * * [it is] because we expect that the near future is likely
to bring more cable televisions systems, more extensive use of mid-band
frequencies'' and as a consequence, greater potential for
interference.\66\ While the First Report and Order established the
basic framework for signal leakage that continues to be used today, the
Commission at the time recognized the need for further analysis and
commissioned a federal advisory committee for this purpose.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ For example, leakage can occur when outside cabling becomes
frayed due to age, damage caused by animals, or breaks due to severe
weather.
\64\ Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Add
Frequency Channeling Requirements and Restrictions and to Require
Monitoring for Signal Leakage from Cable Television Systems, Report
and Order, FCC 77-541, 42 FR 41284, Aug. 16, 1977 (``First Report
and Order'').
\65\ See First Report and Order.
\66\ Id. at 823, para. 28.
\67\ See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Add
Frequency Channeling Requirements and Restrictions and to Require
Monitoring for Signal Leakage From Cable Television Systems, Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 80-126, 45 FR 19578, Mar. 26,
1980 (``Subsequently, the Commission did appoint an Advisory
Committee on Cable Signal Leakage and partially funded a research
program in this area. The Advisory Committee provided suggestions
and guidance throughout the research program, examined the results
of the research, drew technical conclusions, and recommended a new
regulatory approach to preventing interference based on those
conclusions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. In the wake of the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on
Cable Signal Leakage,\68\ the Commission adopted a Second Report and
Order in 1984.\69\ The Second Report and Order implemented the advisory
committee's recommendations and established the comprehensive signal
testing regime currently in use.\70\ Importantly, the Second Report and
Order affirmed the Commission's previous decision regarding the
cumulative nature of leaks from cable systems and their potential for
interference when aggregated by receivers in aircraft passing
overhead.\71\ It also noted that reported cases of interference
increased between the adoption of the First Report and Order in 1977
and the Second Report and Order in 1984, lending credence to the First
Report and Order's prediction that additional interference would appear
as cable deployment continued.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ United States Advisory Committee on Cable Signal Leakage,
Final report of the Advisory Committee on Cable Signal Leakage to
the Chief, Cable Television Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (1979).
\69\ Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Add
Frequency Channeling Requirements and Restrictions and to Require
Monitoring for Signal Leakage from Cable Television Systems, Second
Report and Order, FCC 84-516, 49 FR 45431, Nov. 16, 1984 (``Second
Report and Order''). See also Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission's Rules to Add Frequency Channeling Requirements and
Restrictions and to Require Monitoring for Signal Leakage from Cable
Television Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 85-333, 50 FR
29394, July 19, 1985 (This MO&O addressed seven petitions for
reconsideration, upholding the Second Report and Order broadly but
relaxing the precision with which regular monitoring must be
performed and expanding what system expansion may be performed under
the grandfathering provision).
\70\ Id.
\71\ Second Report and Order, para. 36.
\72\ Id. at paras. 8 through 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. The rules established in 1984 by the Second Report and Order
remained largely unchanged in the ensuing 25 years.\73\ However, in
2004, the Commission extended protection to an emergency band near 406
MHz, and set limits for interference from both analog and digital cable
systems.\74\ The signal leakage rules are contained in Sec. Sec.
76.610 to 76.620 (the technical rules), Sec. Sec. 76.1706, 76.1803,
76.1804 (recordkeeping and reporting rules), and in Sec. 76.605(a)(12)
(a general signal leakage performance rule) of the Commission's
rules.\75\ MVPDs that operate coaxial cable systems \76\ are
responsible for ensuring that system design, installation and operation
comply with the rules and for compliance testing four times per
year.\77\ Once each year, operators of coaxial cable systems must
calculate their cumulative signal leakage and report their results to
the Commission.\78\ As set forth below, we seek comment on the adequacy
of these rules, our proposed modifications for digital cable
operations, and the costs and benefits associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Minor changes to the rules have been made, including
converting the rules to metric, non-substantive reorganization of
the rules, and correction of typographical errors. See, e.g.
Oversight of Radio and TV Rules, Order, 53 FR 2499 (Mass Media 1988)
and Oversight of Radio and TV Rules, Correction, 53 FR 5684 (Mass
Media 1988) (Correcting typographical errors).
\74\ See 406 MHz Order (extending protection to the emergency
band near 406 MHz).
\75\ 47 CFR 76.610 through 620, 76.615(a)(12), 76.1706, 76.1803
through 1804.
\76\ In addition to traditional cable operators, MVPDs such as
hotels, motels, hospitals, apartment buildings, private settlements,
university campuses, etc., who operate coaxial cable plants are
responsible for complying with the signal leakage rules. MVPDs with
fewer than 1000 subscribers are exempt from the recordkeeping
requirements. See 47 CFR 76.1700(a).
\77\ 47 CFR 76.614.
\78\ See 47 CFR 76.611(a)(1) (requiring operators to conduct a
complete CLI calculation every 12 months), and 47 CFR 76.1803
(requiring operators to report the results of their CLI testing to
the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adapting Regulations for Digital Cable
a. Aeronautical Frequency Notifications
29. The first component of the Commission's signal leakage regime
is the Aeronautical Frequency Notification (``AFN''). Prior to
commencing operation in the aeronautical radio frequency bands above an
average power level equal to or greater than 10-4 watts
across a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond time period,\79\ MVPDs
are required to notify the Commission and provide a ``point and
radius'' description of their system, allowing the Commission to
generally locate the geographic area from which interference might
aggregate.\80\ This power threshold and measurement window were
developed for analog systems, and an equivalent for digital systems
must be selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 47 CFR 76.1804.
\80\ Id. This notification is submitted to the Commission on FCC
Form 321, now collected electronically through the COALS system at
www.fcc.gov/coals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. We propose to use the same power threshold and measurement
window to trigger the notification requirement for AFN as the power
threshold and measurement window that triggers the prohibition around
the 406 MHz emergency frequencies.\81\ Near the emergency distress
frequencies, systems are prohibited from operating above a particular
peak power level (10-5 watts over a 30 kHz bandwidth in any
2.5 millisecond time period).\82\ In the 406 MHz Order, the Commission
determined that the power threshold should remain unchanged when
considering interference from digital, rather than analog, coaxial
cable systems, but that the measurement window needed to be adapted.
Based on the relatively even distribution of power throughout the
channel for digital signals, and the bandwidth of the devices receiving
the interference,\83\ the Commission determined that for digital
systems, a 10-5 watt average power level should be
calculated across a 30 kHz bandwidth for a time period of 2.5
milliseconds.\84\ Given the similar channelization of aeronautical
receivers (25 kHz for aeronautical receivers versus 24 kHz for
satellite), for the AFN requirement, we tentatively conclude that the
same power threshold and measurement window are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 47 CFR 76.616(b).
\82\ See 47 CFR 76.616. Specifically analog systems are
prohibited from operating with a peak power level of 10-5
watts within 100 kHz of 121.5 MHz, within 50 kHz of 156.8 MHz and
243 MHz, and at any point between 405.925 and 406.176 MHz.
\83\ 406 MHz Order, (``The Search and Rescue Processor subsystem
that receives the signals transmitted from the beacons has a
receiver bandwidth of 24 kHz. It is critical that the transmitted
signal be received by the processor subsystem without any
interference. Therefore, we are imposing a limit on the average
power of a digital signal over a resolution bandwidth of 30 kHz in
order to protect the satellite receiver from interference.'').
\84\ 47 CFR 76.616(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Today, the vast majority of coaxial cable systems maintain an
AFN on file with the Commission.\85\ The change
[[Page 61362]]
proposed above will only affect those systems that are operating a
digital channel or channels in the aeronautical band between the
existing analog threshold (10-4 watts peak power over a 25
kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond time period) and our proposed
digital threshold (10-5 watts average power over a 30 kHz
bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond time period). Under our rule proposed
above, operators of those systems that were not previously required to
notify the Commission will need to amend or file an AFN. We note,
however, that some systems have transitioned to digital operation in
these bands and ``withdrawn'' their AFN as a result. We believe that
these systems should file a new AFN so that the Commission (for
aeronautical users) and the Cospas-Sarsat (for international satellite
search and rescue) can identify both potential sources of interference.
Conversely, most modern coaxial cable systems operate on frequencies
inclusive of the aeronautical bands, and thus only have the burden of
notifying the Commission when the size of their system changes.
Therefore, for the majority of systems, there is little, if any,
additional regulatory burden as a result of this proposal as they
should already have an AFN on file with the Commission covering the
complete aeronautical bands and their complete service footprint. For
those systems operating digital channels in the aeronautical bands
below the old analog threshold but above our proposed digital threshold
of 10-5 watts average power across a 30 kHz bandwidth in any
2.5 millisecond period, we believe that the one-time burden of
notification to the Commission and infrequent updating is necessary to
ensure public safety and presents only a minor burden on coaxial cable
operators.\86\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Approximately 87% of active systems have an AFN on file
with the Commission as of July 1, 2012. See FCC Cable Operations and
Licensing System, www.fcc.gov/COALS.
\86\ We expect this rule change to impact only cable systems
which have completed the transition to all-digital operation and
deactivated their AFN and new, all-digital cable systems which have
never filed an AFN with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Channel Frequency Offsets
32. We propose not to apply the channel frequency offset
requirement to digital signals as digital signals simply cannot be
offset in the way analog frequencies can. Channel frequency offsets
have always played a critical role in minimizing the interference
potential from analog coaxial cable systems to both aircraft
communication and aircraft navigation services, such as the Instrument
Landing System (ILS) and VHF Omnidirectional Range service (VOR). The
power levels of an analog television channel are not uniform across the
bandwidth; rather, power is significantly higher at the center
frequencies of each of the subcarriers contained within the channel.
The Commission's rules prohibit the subcarriers from lining up directly
with the ILS, VOR, or communications carriers to diminish the
possibility that a leak will cause harmful interference to these safety
services.\87\ As a result, the Second Report and Order established a
channel frequency offset of 12.5 kHz, with a tolerance of
5 kHz.\88\ This requirement is not meaningful with respect to digital
signals, however, as digital signals do not have the discrete carriers
necessary to effectuate an offset. Instead, digital signals operate at
a nearly constant average power throughout the 6 MHz channel.
Therefore, we propose to maintain the channel frequency offset
requirement only with respect to analog signals but eliminate the
requirement for digital signals. We note, however, that removing the
offset requirements for digital signals does not exempt operators from
compliance with the channelization and identification requirements of
Sec. 76.605.\89\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See First Report and Order, 65 FCC 2d at 824. A 10 kHz
offset can result in undesired signal strength diminishing by up to
40 dB. Id. at 824 through 825.
\88\ Second Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d at 520.
\89\ See Proposed rule 47 CFR 76.605(b)(1)(ii) (currently 47 CFR
76.605(a)(1)(ii)) (requiring analog channel compliance with CEA-542-
B: ``Standard: Cable Television Channel Identification Plan'') and
proposed rule 47 CFR 76.605(c) (requiring digital channel compliance
with ANSI/SCTE 40: ``Digital Cable Network Interface Standard,''
which requires compliance with CEA-542-B: ``Standard: Cable
Television Channel Identification Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Analog to Digital Interference Equivalency
33. The Commission must address the implication of not having the
interference protection afforded by the channel frequency offset
requirement for digital channels. For analog signals, channel frequency
offsets function to lower the strength of an undesired signal and our
rules factored this offset into the signal leakage limit
calculation.\90\ Digital signals, however, distribute their power
evenly throughout the 6 MHz channel. While the result of this even
distribution is a signal which cannot be offset like an analog signal,
it does provide an average power level well below the peak power of the
visual carrier of an analog signal. Further, because we limit our
analysis of interference potential to the receiver bandwidth of an
aircraft receiver, which should be no larger than 25 kHz, these two
offsetting effects can be quantified. In their comments for the Second
Report and Order, the FAA stated that absent frequency offsets, the
cumulative signal leakage threshold would need to be decreased by 25
dB.\91\ This analysis, of course, was based on 1980s receiver
technology. Accordingly, we seek comment on improvements in receiver
components and hardware that have resulted in improved receiver
sensitivity, selectivity, and other performance characteristics and
might alter this calculation. However, we tentatively conclude that we
do not need to consider improvements in receiver selectivity, as we are
considering, by definition, undesired signals on-channel with desired
signals. Comparing the average power level of a digital cable signal to
the peak power level of an analog signal, the digital signal creates
substantially less interference. Specifically, the peak power of the
analog visual carrier is narrowly constrained, delivering essentially
all of its power directly into the 25 kHz receiver front-end. A digital
signal operating at a particular average power over 6 MHz delivers only
a small subset of its power into any particular 25 kHz bandwidth. This
results in a digital signal operating at a particular average power
level across a 6 MHz channel delivering 23.8 dB less power into a
receiver having a 25 kHz bandwidth than an analog television signal
operating at the same peak power.\92\ While the lack of frequency
offsets increases the potential for signal interference to aviation
receivers by 25 dB, the use of digital modulation decreases signal the
level of potential interference by 23.8 dB, resulting in a net increase
in interference potential of 1.2 dB for a receiver having a 25 kHz
bandwidth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Second Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d at 525.
\91\ Id.
\92\ The Relative bandwidth ratio of digital QAM signals to
aviation receiver bandwidth can be calculated by the formula 10 *
log (6 MHz/25 kHz), which equals 23.8 dB less effective interference
power from the perspective of a 25 kHz wide aviation receiver. Wider
receivers would receive more interference power and narrower
receivers would receive less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. We therefore propose to amend our rules to account for this
increase of 1.2 dB to interference from digital signals. The general
signal leakage requirement, stated in Sec. 76.605(a)(12),\93\ provides
that the field strength of signal leakage should not exceed 15
microvolts per meter ([micro]V/m) measured at 30 meters for frequencies
below 54 MHz and
[[Page 61363]]
above 216 MHz, and 20 [micro]V/m measured at 3 meters for frequencies
between 54 MHz and 216 MHz. Accordingly, we propose to decrease the
maximum leakage level for both of these bands by 1.2 dB, which when
rounded to the nearest 0.1 [micro]V/m, results in a 17.4 [micro]V/m
threshold between 54 MHz and 216 MHz, and a 13.1 [micro]V/m threshold
at all other frequencies. We seek comment on this proposal.
Additionally, the requirement for regular signal leakage monitoring
requires the use of a detector capable of detecting a leak in excess of
20 [micro]V/m at 3 meters.\94\ Following our reasoning above, we
propose to permit the use of analog detectors with this sensitivity
when measuring analog signals in a system which operates no digital
signals in the aeronautical bands, but to require analog and digital
detectors to have sufficient sensitivity to detect the 1.2 dB decrease
in the maximum signal leakage level we propose above, or 17.4 [micro]V/
m, in those systems which operate digital signals in the aeronautical
bands. Further, we propose to require digital leakage in excess of this
threshold to be noted and repaired within a reasonable time, factoring
in the severity of the leak and operational considerations. We seek
comment regarding any potential burdens that this change in the general
signal leakage requirement may have on operators. For instance, would
cable operators have to acquire new or more sensitive equipment, or
modify their testing procedures, to comply with the proposal? To the
extent there are increased costs, are there also countervailing
benefits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 47 CFR 76.605(a)(12).
\94\ 47 CFR 76.614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. For cumulative signal leakage, there are three thresholds that
we propose adjusting to address digital transmission. They are the
threshold at which the rules become applicable, the threshold at which
leaks must be included in the cumulative leakage index (``CLI'')
calculation, and the maximum leakage and CLI permissible. Under Sec.
76.610, the CLI rules apply where operations in the aeronautical
frequency bands exceed an average power level of 100 microwatts
(10-4 watts) or 38.75 dBmV in transmitting carriers or any
signal component in a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond period at
any point in the cable distribution system.\95\ We propose to decrease
the signal level at which the rules become applicable by 1.2 dB for
digital signals resulting in a threshold power level of 75.85
microwatts or 37.55 dBmV. Once an operator is subject to CLI, the
operators may demonstrate compliance based either upon a Sec.
76.611(a)(1) ground-based measurement or by a Sec. 76.611(a)(2)
airspace measurement.\96\ For ground-based measurements, operators must
include analog leaks in excess of 50 [micro]V/m in the signal leakage
index calculation, and an I3000 of less than or equal to -7
or I[infin] of less than or equal to 64 is permissible.\97\
Therefore, by subtracting 1.2 dB from each of these components, we
propose that digital leaks in excess of 43.6 [micro]V/m be included in
the calculation (and reported to the Commission) and that the maximum
acceptable I3000 becomes -8.2 and the maximum acceptable
I[infin] becomes 62.8. For airspace measurements, coaxial
cable operators may not exceed a field strength of 10 [micro]V/m RMS at
any point 450 meters above the average terrain of the coaxial cable
system. Converting for digital leakage, the new maximum field strength
becomes 8.7 [micro]V/m. We seek comment on these proposals and any
other issues that may arise from this conversion, especially on the
equivalency of our ground and air based measurements. We also seek
comment regarding any potential burdens that this change in the general
signal leakage requirement may have on operators. For instance, would
cable operators have to acquire new or more sensitive equipment, or
modify their testing procedures, to comply with the proposal? To the
extent there are increased costs, are there also countervailing
benefits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 47 CFR 76.610.
\96\ 47 CFR 76.611(a)(1), (2).
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Miscellaneous Issues
36. We seek comment on several additional issues associated with
the appropriate regulation of signal leakage with regard to digital
transmissions. First, Sec. 76.609(h) contains a detailed methodology
for performing signal leakage measurements.\98\ This methodology,
however, is specific to analog signals and may not be appropriate for
digital signals. We maintain this requirement for analog signals, and
we seek comment on an appropriate measurement technique for digital
signals. To the extent that Sec. 76.1803 requires submission to the
Commission of a description of the method by which compliance with the
basic signal leakage criteria is achieved, we will continue to require
such submission in the absence of a common procedure for digital signal
as we believe this is necessary to permit verification of sound
engineering practices. However, we may revisit this issue if
measurement of digital signal leakage becomes widely standardized in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 47 CFR 76.609(h). For example, 47 CFR 76.609(h)(2) directs
the operator to express the field strength in terms of the rms (root
mean square) value of the synchronizing peak for each cable
television channel. Digital channels do not have a ``synchronizing
peak.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Next, we address the issues of what type of signal, analog or
digital, an operator must test and what signal leakage limit they must
adhere to. The decreased signal levels we propose in the section above
are designed to be equivalent in interference potential to analog
signals. Accordingly, we propose to allow operators to choose to test
either an analog carrier using either their existing analog signal
leakage test equipment and an offset analog signal, or a digital
carrier using new digital signal leakage test equipment.\99\ Either
method should yield the same peak signal leakage from the coaxial cable
plant. Thus, we tentatively conclude that operators are allowed to
select whether to perform tests on an analog carrier or a digital
carrier at their discretion, except that where an operator transmits
any digital signals in the aeronautical bands, the operator would be
required to use the digital limits we described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ ``A carrier is an electrical signal at a continuous
frequency capable of being modified to carry information. For analog
systems, the carrier is usually a sine wave of a particular
frequency, such as [121.2625 MHz, commonly used for signal leakage].
It is the modifications or the changes from the carrier's basic
frequency that become the information carried. Modifications are
made via amplitude, frequency, or phase. The process of modifying a
carrier signal is called modulation. A carrier is modulated and
demodulated (the signal extracted at the other end) according to
fixed protocols.'' H. Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary at 152
(20th ed. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. We seek comment on whether our signal leakage performance
criteria rules are sufficient, whether or not we need to expand the
frequencies protected, and whether to maintain the requirement that the
test frequency be located within the 108-137 MHz band.\100\ We note
that at the time of the Second Report and Order, 400 MHz was near the
upper limit of the bandwidth of coaxial cable systems deployed at the
time.\101\ Today, coaxial cable systems routinely deploy in excess of
750 MHz, and deployments up to 1 GHz exist. We seek comment on
potential and actual interference from coaxial cable systems to
critical infrastructure operating above 400 MHz and the implications of
extending signal leakage protection to
[[Page 61364]]
higher bandwidths.\102\ We further seek comment on our current testing
and recordkeeping requirements,\103\ including the requirement that
tests be performed every three months, that tests be reported to the
Commission once per year, the duration of time that records must be
kept, and any other associated burdens that might be reduced without
diminishing the efficacy of the Commission's signal leakage program. We
seek comment on whether to retain or modify these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 47 CFR 76.611(b).
\101\ Second Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d at 520.
\102\ See, e.g. Ron Hranac, Some Thoughts on LTE Interference,
Communications Technology (Oct. 1, 2011) available at http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/columns/broadband/48482.html. ``In one
case, a leak on the order of 1,000 microvolts per meter ([micro]V/m)
was found, despite the fact that leakage in the VHF aeronautical
band was well-below the FCC's 20 [micro]V/m limit. The problem was a
defective tap. A replacement tap took care of the leakage, but
follow-up lab testing of the defective tap showed it had about 40 dB
less shielding effectiveness at 750 MHz than it did at 133 MHz
because of a flaky faceplate gasket. That correlated well with the
approximately 1,000 [micro]V/m leakage field strength at 750 MHz
versus the approximately 10 [micro]V/m leakage field strength at 133
MHz, also a 40 dB difference.''
\103\ 47 CFR 76.614, 76.1706, 76.1803 through 1804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Finally, we propose limiting, or potentially eliminating, the
I3000 method of calculating CLI, favoring the
I[infin] method.\104\ I3000 differs from
I[infin] in that it provides discounting of leaks based on
their distance from the geographic center of the system, whereas
I[infin] considers all leaks equally. The respective total
CLI values for each, however, are designed to result in equivalent
levels of permissible leakage. At the time these formulas were
established, systems were much smaller than they are today. Now that
systems generally cover much larger geographical areas; the discounting
based on distance results in a previously unforeseen breakdown in the
I3000 formula. Specifically, for sufficiently large systems,
significant leaks, which alone would be impermissible under the
I[infin] formula, become minimized due to their distance
from the center of the system. By calculation, we can determine that a
single leak of 1340.05 [micro]V/m located at the center of a coaxial
cable system results in that system exceeding the maximum allowable
CLI. However, that leak, if located more than 80.32 km from the system
center, would appear to be equivalent to a 50 [micro]V/m leak located
at the system center. Such a leak, would be potentially strong enough
to interfere with aircraft receivers alone, but would not be captured
in an I3000 measurement. Therefore, we propose to limit the
application of I3000 to systems with a total geographic
diameter of less than 160 km. However, we also note that very few
systems choose to calculate CLI using the I3000 method due
to the increased recordkeeping and calculation burden associated with
determining the distance of a particular leak from the center of a
system. Thus, in the alternative, we propose eliminating
I3000 as a calculation method altogether and requiring
operators to use only I[infin]. We seek comment on both of
these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See 47 CFR 76.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reorganizations, Corrections, and Other Updates in Part 76
40. We further propose edits to remove references to effective
dates that have passed, make editorial corrections, delete obsolete
rules, update various technical standards that are incorporated by
reference into our rules, and clarify language in Part 76 of our rules.
The proposed changes are intended to set forth existing compliance
requirements more clearly for MVPDs, franchising authorities, and the
public. We seek comment on any other requirements that have been
implemented by Commission order, but that have inadvertently been
omitted from our rules.
41. Specifically, we propose to remove obsolete references to dates
in Sec. Sec. 76.56(b), 76.57(e), 76.64(a), 76.105(b), 76.127(f),
76.309(c)(1), 76.606, 76.1204(a), 76.1601, and 76.1602. We propose to
correct citation references in Sec. Sec. 76.56(a)(1)(i), 76.612(b)(2),
76.1508, 76.1509, 76.1510, and 76.1701(d). We propose to correct the
numbering and references in Section 76.1205, and to eliminate the
duplicative reporting requirements found in Sec. 76.1610(f) and (g).
We seek comment on these proposed changes, and encourage commenters to
propose any other non-substantive changes to Part 76 of our rules that
will correct errors or more clearly convey the Commission's intent.
42. We propose to delete Sec. 76.1909, which was created as part
of the Commission's Broadcast Flag rules in 2003, since it is obsolete
and without legal effect.\105\ The Broadcast Flag rules were vacated by
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005
insofar as they required demodulators to give effect to the Broadcast
Flag.\106\ The Media Bureau released an order on August, 24, 2011
deleting the Broadcast Flag rules in Parts 15 and 73 of the
Commission's rules, but did not delete Sec. 76.1909 from the CFR.\107\
Although this provision was not vacated by the Court, without the
obligation that equipment respect the Broadcast Flag, these rules would
seem to be ineffective. Our proposed deletion of Section 76.1909 would
remove the obsolete Broadcast Flag Rule. We seek comment on this
proposed deletion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Digital Broadcast Content Protection, Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03-273, 68 FR 67624,
Dec. 3, 2003. The broadcast flag rules were intended to prevent the
indiscriminate redistribution of television broadcast content over
the Internet.
\106\ See American Library Association, et al. v. FCC, 406 F3d
689 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
\107\ See Amendment of Parts 1, 73 and 76 of the Commission's
Rules, Order, DA 11-1432, 76 FR 62642 Oct. 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. We propose to update the various incorporations by reference in
Part 76 to the most current versions made available by the relevant
standards bodies.\108\ We believe the standards incorporated in Part 76
have changed in minor ways since their original adoption by the
Commission, correcting typographical errors, adding clarification, and
updating various requirements in minor ways to reflect improvements in
technology and continued innovation. Further, we expect that most
industry participants are adhering to the current versions of these
standards, even though they are not required to by our rules. The
standards we are proposing to update are as follows: \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See 47 CFR 76.602, Incorporation by reference.
\109\ SCTE standards are available from the Society of Cable
Telecommunications Engineers Web site, located at http://www.scte.org/standards/Standards_Available.aspx, CEA standards are
available from the Consumer Electronics Association Web site,
located at http://www.ce.org/Standards/, and ATSC A/65 is available
from the Advanced Television Systems Committee Web site located at
http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) ATSC A/65D: ``ATSC Standard: Program and System Information
Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable (Revision D),'' IBR used
for Sec. 76.640. Note: Part 76 of the Commission's rules currently
incorporates revision B of this standard. Revision C was adopted for
broadcast purposes in the 3rd DTV Periodic Review.\110\ Regarding cable
television, revision D primarily adds language to reflect the
Commission's rules implementing the standard. Additionally, the
potential exists for revision E of this standard to be released before
the end of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and
Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, Report and
Order, FCC 07-228, 73 FR 5634, Jan. 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) CEA-542-C, ``CEA Standard: Cable Television Channel
Identification Plan,'' IBR used for Sec. 76.605. Note: In the update
from version B to version C, the channel plan has been extended from
864 MHz to 1002 MHz,
[[Page 61365]]
accommodating the largest cable systems.
(3) CEA-931-C, ``Remote Control Command Pass-through Standard for
Home Networking,'' IBR used for Sec. 76.640. Note: This revision
primarily extended the existing specifications to work over IP
connections, among other minor changes.
(4) ANSI/SCTE 26 2010 (formerly DVS 194): ``Home Digital Network
Interface Specification with Copy Protection,'' IBR used for Sec.
76.640. Note: The 2010 revision to SCTE 26 provides for numerous minor
updates, adding requirements to support additional features, such as
powering-on and off, passing through tuning, mute, and restore volume
functions, and other minor protocol additions.
(5) SCTE 28 2012 (formerly DVS 295): ``Host-POD Interface
Standard,'' IBR used for Sec. 76.640. Note: The most recent version of
SCTE 28 has not yet been ANSI approved, and merely updates and adds
references. Previous revisions have made minor changes to the ID
reporting mechanism, application interface, and baseline HTML profile
requirements.
(6) ANSI/SCTE 40 2011 (formerly DVS 313), ``Digital Cable Network
Interface Standard,'' IBR used for Sec. Sec. 76.605 and 76.640. Note:
The 2011 update to SCTE 40 updates internal citations, renumbers
various tables, and makes minor adjustments to the performance
specifications that generally loosen the standard.
(7) ANSI/SCTE 41 2011 (formerly DVS 301): ``POD Copy Protection
System,'' IBR used for Sec. 76.640. Note: The 2011 revision to SCTE 41
updates internal references to other standards, requires PODs and Hosts
to support an ``ID reporting screen,'' and removes the section on Two-
Way System Host Authentication Message Protocol.''
(8) ANSI/SCTE 54 2009 (formerly DVS 241), ``Digital Video Service
Multiplex and Transport System Standard for Cable Television,'' IBR
used for Sec. 76.640. Note: The 2009 revision to SCTE 54 updates
internal references to other standards, and containing minor revisions
to the MPEG-2 registration descriptor, program identifier, audio
elementary stream identifier, among others and adds a section for
Emergency Cable Alert as adopted by the Commission's EAS orders.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent
Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the
United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and
Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, Second
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-
109, 72 FR 62123, Nov. 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) ANSI/SCTE 65 2008 (formerly DVS 234), ``Service Information
Delivered Out-of-Band for Digital Cable Television,'' 2008, IBR used
for Sec. 76.640. Note: The most recent revisions to SCTE 65 primarily
update internal references, including requiring compliance SCTE 28 for
host-POD interaction.
We believe that the updated versions of these standards are generally
backwards-compatible, such that parties following the version currently
incorporated in the Commission's rules would also be in compliance with
the current versions of these standards.\112\ We seek comment on our
proposal to revise our rules by incorporating these updated standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ For example, SCTE 40 2011 has been updated from SCTE 40
2003 by being reordered for clarity, extended to cover systems
operating up to 1002 MHz from 864 MHz, and revised to require less
stringent technical performance, such as permitting stronger
adjacent signals. Operators wishing to continue to follow the more-
strict requirements of SCTE 40 2003 would not need to alter their
systems to comply with an update to SCTE 40 2011. See ANSI/SCTE 40
2011: ``Digital Cable Network Interface Standard,'' available at
www.scte.org/documents/pdf/standards/SCTE_40_2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Finally, we propose to amend the note to Sec. 76.55(d).\113\
Section 76.55 contains the definitions applicable to the Commission's
must-carry rules, and subpart (d) lists the requirements to be
considered a ``qualified low power station.'' Among the requirements,
Sec. 76.55(d)(4) requires the station to deliver a ``good quality
signal'' to the appropriate cable system headend, and the Note to
Paragraph (d) provides the definition of ``good quality signal'' in
this context. In 2001, the Commission established the standard for
digital television, but the Note to paragraph (d) was never
updated.\114\ We propose, then, to amend the paragraph to list the
digital threshold of -61 dBm at all channels. We also propose to strike
the phrase, ``or a baseband signal'' from the note. This phrase
contradicts both the plain language and the purpose of the section it
clarifies. Section 76.55(d)(4), requires a low power television station
to deliver a good quality over-the-air signal to qualify for carriage
on the system. A baseband signal, in contrast, is not an over-the-air
signal, instead being the result of an alternate means of
delivery.\115\ Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the inclusion of
the phrase ``or a baseband signal'' was inadvertent, and propose
removing it for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 47 CFR 76.55(d).
\114\ Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals;
Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules et al, Report and
Order, FCC 01-22, 66 FR 16523, Mar. 26, 2001.
\115\ This note was introduced by the Memorandum, Opinion, and
Order resolving petitions for reconsideration arising from the 1993
Must-Carry order (See Implementation of the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Broadcast Signal
Carriage Issues, Memorandum, Opinion, and Order, FCC 94-251, 59 FR
62330, Dec. 5, 1994; Resolving petitions for reconsideration arising
from Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues,
*EFFECTIVE DATES* April 2, June 3, June 17, and May 3, 1993, Report
and Order, FCC 93-144, 58 FR 17350, Apr. 2, 1993). In so doing, the
Commission sua sponte moved to clarify the relevant signal carriage
standards for must-carry purposes, answering the question of under
what circumstances ``noncommercial stations place adequate signal
levels over a cable system's principal headend'' (see the Cable TV
Act of 1992 at 6735-6). This standard also relates to over-the-air
measurement, for which providing a baseband signal would not be
appropriate. Further, the term baseband is not used in the item
except in the appendix listing new rule language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (``RFA'') \116\ the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612,
has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110
Stat. 857 (1996).
\117\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
46. With this NPRM, we propose to update our cable television
technical rules to facilitate the cable industry's widespread
transition from analog to digital transmission systems. Specifically,
we seek comment on our proposals to modernize and modify the
Commission's proof-of-performance rules and basic signal leakage
performance criteria. In addition, we propose modifications throughout
Part 76 to remove outdated language, correct citations, and make other
minor or non-substantive updates. We seek to adopt clear and effective
rules that reflect technological advancements in the cable
[[Page 61366]]
television industry, and to apply them to cable operators in a way that
is minimally burdensome.
47. Cable Signal Quality (Proof-of-Performance). The need for FCC
action in this area derives from changing technology in the cable
services market. Section 624(e) of the Communications Act requires the
Commission to maintain standards for cable systems to ensure that
consumers receive good quality signals. When the Commission adopted
technical rules in the 1990s, digital cable service was in its infancy,
and therefore the rules were adopted with analog cable service in mind.
Today, digital cable service is common, but certain analog technical
rules related to cable service do not translate well to digital cable.
Therefore, the NPRM proposes to establish proof-of-performance rules
that specifically address digital technology. Today, digital cable can
be divided into those systems which utilize QAM, a type of digital
modulation, and those that do not. QAM digital cable is used by the
majority of systems to serve the vast majority of cable subscribers in
the United States. Therefore, the NPRM proposes to adopt a QAM
standard, SCTE 40, which was designed to ensure that unidirectional
CableCARD products receive good quality service, and to apply it
broadly as a new proof-of-performance standard for QAM digital cable
systems. For non-QAM systems to which SCTE 40 cannot be applied, the
NPRM proposes a new, streamlined process by which each such system can
coordinate with the Commission to develop a plan to follow. Thus, the
Commission seeks to ensure that consumers continue to receive good
quality cable service while imposing the minimum possible compliance,
testing, and recordkeeping burden on cable operators.
48. Cable Signal Leakage (CLI). The NPRM further tentatively
concludes that the Commission's protection of spectrum used for
aeronautical navigation and communication remains a critical need for
public safety. However, the rules designed for analog systems were
established prior to the current widespread deployment of digital cable
technology and must be updated to provide adequate protection to
aeronautical frequencies from digital systems. With the proposed
digital rules, MVPDs utilizing coaxial cable systems will no longer be
prohibited from operating above certain power thresholds. By updating
our signal leakage standards, removing the required channel offsets,
but retaining notification of operation above certain power levels and
regular testing, recordkeeping, and reporting, operators will be
permitted to operate above these thresholds provided they can
demonstrate a lack of harm to other spectrum users. In so doing, cable
operators will be able to offer additional and expanded services on
these aeronautical frequency bands, thus utilizing their facilities
more efficiently. Therefore, the Commission predicts that these rules
will be a benefit to small entities, which have generally fewer
resources to expand their facilities to higher frequencies to avoid
causing interference to the aeronautical bands. Further, the Commission
predicts that by adopting flexible rules for testing leakage, small
entities will be able to demonstrate their lack of leakage with
minimal, if any, additional burden.
49. Finally, by revising and updating the Commission's rules, the
Commission seeks to make it easier for MVPDs to understand the
Commission's rules, and therefore to make compliance more
straightforward. By reducing the burden associated with reading and
interpreting the Commission's rules, we believe that small entities
will need to expend fewer resources to ensure compliance.
2. Legal Basis
50. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 624(e),
and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 308, 544(e), and 544a.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
51. 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.\118\ 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.\119\ In addition, the term
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act.\120\ 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'').\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\119\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies, ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA
and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such the term which are appropriate to the activities
of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.
\120\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\121\ 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of
dominance in its field of operation, and independence are sometime
difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television.
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Cable and Other Program Distribution. 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.'' \122\ The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees.\123\ According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 955 firms in the subcategory of Cable and Other Program
Distribution that operated for the entire year.\124\ Of this total, 939
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or more.\125\ Thus, under this size
standard, the Commission believes that a majority of firms operating in
this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers'' (partial definition), http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
\123\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
\124\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
States: 2007, NAICS code 5171102 (located at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en).
\125\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). 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
[[Page 61367]]
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.\126\
Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all
but 11 are small under this size standard.\127\ In addition, under the
Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers.\128\ 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.\129\ Thus, under
this second size standard, the Commission believes that most cable
systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
\127\ These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\128\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
\129\ Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook
2008, ``U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,'' page F-2 (data
current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for
which classifying data were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Cable System Operators. The Act 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.'' \130\ 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.\131\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
operators nationwide, all but 10 are small under this size
standard.\132\ 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,\133\ and
therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn.1-3.
\131\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC
Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
\132\ These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\133\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
pursuant to Sec. 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services.\134\ The open video system (``OVS'') framework
was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized
options for the provision of video programming services by local
exchange carriers.\135\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for
the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\136\ OVS falls
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services,
which is ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' \137\ 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 the OVS service, the Commission relies on data currently
available from the U.S. Census for the year 2007. According to that
source, there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,144 operated with less than
1,000 employees, and 44 operated with more than 1,000 employees.
However, as to the latter 44 there is no data available that shows how
many operated with more than 1,500 employees. Based on this data, the
majority of these firms can be considered small.\138\ In addition, we
note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some
now providing service.\139\ Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are
currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local
OVS franchises.\140\ The Commission does not have financial or
employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide
OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, at least some of
the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. The Commission further
notes that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116
areas, and some of these are currently providing service.\141\
Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received
approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington,
DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do
not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is
available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and
are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide
OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission
concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify
as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
\135\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4). See 13th Annual Report,
24 FCC Rcd at 606, para. 135.
\136\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
\137\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
\138\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
\139\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
\140\ See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07 para. 135.
BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-
based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a
single network.
\141\ See http:// www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/current-filings-certification-open-video-systems (current as of July 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census
category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers,'' \142\ which was
developed for small wireline firms.\143\ Under this category, the SBA
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\144\ Census data for 2007 indicate that in that year there
were 1,906 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications
carriers. Of that 1,906, 1,880 operated with 999 or fewer employees,
and 26 operated with 1,000 employee or more. Based on this data, we
estimate that a majority of operators of SMATV/PCO companies
[[Page 61368]]
were small under the applicable SBA size standard.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
\143\ Although SMATV systems often use DBS video programming as
part of their service package to subscribers, they are not included
in section 340's definition of ``satellite carrier.'' See 47 U.S.C.
340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6).
\144\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2007).
\145\ http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
57. The rules proposed in the NPRM will impose additional
reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements on cable
operators. Currently, all cable operators are required to perform
proof-of-performance testing twice each year, in the warmest and
coldest parts of the year, to document the successful completion of
those tests, and to maintain the records in their public file for five
years. Further, all operators of coaxial cable systems, which includes
not just cable operators but non-cable operators, such as PCOs, Open
Video Systems, SMATV operators, are required to perform signal leakage
testing four times per year, to document the results of those test, to
maintain those records in their public file for five years, and to
submit the results of one of those tests on FCC Form 320 to the
Commission. The NPRM proposes tests to new digital standards, to be
performed by operators of hybrid and all-digital cable systems, but
maintains the existing recordkeeping requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
58. 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.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Cable Signal Quality (Proof-of-Performance). In this NPRM, the
Commission tentatively concludes that creating rules for digital cable
systems using QAM will lead to benefits for consumers in the form of
consistent, good quality signals, and will reduce the burden on
operators by removing the need to file individual waivers for exemption
from the analog rules. For non-QAM systems, where simple standards are
not readily available, the NPRM proposes a streamlined process which
will reduce the economic burden on small operators of filing formal
waivers by providing a case-by-case evaluation of a proof-of-
performance plan based on the operator's internal guidelines. Therefore
the Commission believes that this proposed streamlined process will
result in minimal additional burdens on small entities. The Commission
predicts that adopting a simple, easily understood signal quality
standard already supported by numerous entities protects the public
interest with a minimum of burden on cable operators.
60. With respect to the modification of technical standards for
digital cable transmission, the Commission considered maintaining the
status quo. The Commission has tentatively concluded that its proposal
to adopt new standards for signal quality with respect to digital
service will provide cable operators with certainty that the signals
that they provide to their subscribers are of adequate quality, and
permit them to operate within the Commission's rules without submitting
individual waiver requests. The Commission's proposed rules are based
on performance rather than design standards, and are already required
of some cable systems as a result of their support for CableCARD
products. Therefore, no new burdens of compliance will be imposed on
these systems. The rules further reduce burdens on small entities
because they contain provisions for small cable systems to test fewer
channels, and to test those channels in fewer locations. The proposed
rules further simplify the means by which these numbers are calculated.
Finally, similar to the analog rules the recordkeeping burden
associated with this testing is not required of very small systems.
61. Cable Signal Leakage (CLI). With respect to the proposals
regarding basic signal leakage performance criteria, the Commission has
undertaken to create a digital rule equivalent in interference
protection to basic signal rules for analog cable signals. The existing
basic signal leakage rules as they apply to analog cable signals cannot
apply to digital cable signals due to the differences in the physical
attributes of the two types of signals. However, the Commission has
proposed a testing procedure that permits systems with limited
resources to continue utilizing existing equipment when complying with
the new, digital standards.
62. We welcome comments that suggest modifications of any proposal
if based on evidence of potential differential impact on smaller
entities. We also seek comment on alternatives to the proposed rules
that would assist small entities while ensuring the Commission's goals
of providing good quality signals to consumers and protecting
aeronautical communications and spectrum users from interference are
met.
6. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
63. None.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
64. This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'') \147\ and contains proposed modified
information collection requirements.\148\ It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA.\149\ The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites OMB, the general public, and other
interested parties to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law
104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44
U.S.C.).
\148\ See OMB Control Nos. 3060-0289 (proof-of-performance test
data* * *); 3060-0331 (aeronautical frequency notification, FCC Form
321; 3060-0332 (signal leakage logs and repair records), and 3060-
0433 (basic signal leakage performance report, FCC Form 320).
\149\ See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ex Parte Presentations
65. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules.\150\ Ex parte presentations are permissible if
disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are
generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a
summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing
of the subjects discussed.\151\ More than a one- or two-sentence
description of the views and arguments presented is generally
[[Page 61369]]
required.\152\ Additional rules pertaining to oral and written
presentations in ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings are set forth in
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ See 47 CFR 1.1206 (rule for permit-but-disclose''
proceedings); see also 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216.
\151\ See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2).
\152\ See id.
\153\ See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). See also Commission Emphasizes the
Public's Responsibilities in Permit-But-Disclose Proceedings, Public
Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 19945 (2000). We note that the Commission
recently amended the rules governing the content of ex parte
notices. See Amendment of the Commission's Ex Parte Rules and Other
Procedural Rules, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, GC Docket No. 10-43, FCC 11-11, paras. 35 through 36
(rel. Feb. 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS.\154\
These documents will also be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which
is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the
public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Documents will generally be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Ordering Clauses
67. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 624(e),
and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 308, 544(e), and 544a, notice
is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
68. It is further ordered that the Reference Information Center,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE:
1. 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.
2. Revise Sec. 76.55 Note to paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.55 Definitions applicable to the must-carry rules.
* * * * *
Note to Paragraph (d): For the purposes of this section, for
over-the-air broadcast, a good quality signal shall mean a signal
level of either -45 dBm for analog VHF signals, -49 dBm for analog
UHF signals, or -61 dBm for digital signals (at all channels) at the
input terminals of the signal processing equipment.
* * * * *
3. Revise Sec. 76.56 (a)(1)(i) and (b) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 76.56 Signal carriage obligations.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Systems with 12 or fewer usable activated channels, as defined
in Sec. 76.5(oo), shall be required to carry the signal of one such
station;
* * * * *
(b) Carriage of local commercial television stations. A cable
television system shall carry local commercial broadcast television
stations in accordance with the following provisions:
* * * * *
4. Revise Sec. 76.57(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.57 Channel positioning.
* * * * *
(e) At the time a local commercial station elects must-carry status
pursuant to Sec. 76.64, such station shall notify the cable system of
its choice of channel position as specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and
(d) of this section. A qualified NCE station shall notify the cable
system of its choice of channel position when it requests carriage.
* * * * *
5. Revise Sec. 76.64(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.64 Retransmission consent.
(a) No multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit
the signal of any commercial broadcasting station without the express
authority of the originating station, except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section.
* * * * *
6. Revise Sec. 76.105(b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 76.105 Notifications.
* * * * *
(b) Broadcasters entering into contracts which contain syndicated
exclusivity protection shall notify affected cable systems within sixty
calendar days of the signing of such a contract. A broadcaster shall be
entitled to exclusivity protection beginning on the later of:
* * * * *
Sec. 76.127 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 76.127, remove paragraph (f).
8. Revise Sec. 76.309(c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 76.309 Customer service obligations.
* * * * *
(c) Cable operators are subject to the following customer service
standards:
* * * * *
9. Revise Sec. 76.601(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.601 Performance tests.
* * * * *
(b) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct
complete performance tests of that system at least twice each calendar
year (at intervals not to exceed seven months), unless otherwise noted
below. The performance tests shall be directed at determining the
extent to which the system complies with all the technical standards
set forth in Sec. 76.605 and shall be as follows:
(1) For cable television systems with 1000 or more subscribers but
with 12,500 or fewer subscribers, proof-of-performance tests conducted
pursuant to this section shall include measurements taken at six (6)
widely separated points. However, within each cable system, one
additional test point shall be added for every additional 12,500
subscribers or fraction thereof (e.g., 7 test points if 12,501 to
25,000 subscribers; 8 test points if 25,001 to 37,500 subscribers,
etc.). In addition, for technically integrated portions of cable
systems that are not mechanically continuous (e.g., employing microwave
connections), at least one test point will be required for each portion
of the cable system served by a technically integrated hub. The proof-
of-performance test points chosen shall be balanced to represent all
geographic areas served by the cable system and should include at least
one test point in each local franchise area. At least one-third of the
test points shall be representative of subscriber terminals most
distant from the system input and
[[Page 61370]]
from each microwave receiver (if microwave transmissions are employed),
in terms of cable length. The measurements may be taken at convenient
monitoring points in the cable network: provided, that data shall be
included to relate the measured performance of the system as would be
viewed from a nearby subscriber terminal. An identification of the
instruments, including the makes, model numbers, and the most recent
date of calibration, a description of the procedures utilized, and a
statement of the qualifications of the person performing the tests
shall also be included.
(2) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a
cable television system complies with the standards set forth in Sec.
76.605(b)(3), (4), and (5) shall be made on each of the NTSC or similar
video channels of that system. Unless otherwise as noted, proof-of-
performance tests for all other standards in Sec. 76.605(b) shall be
made on a minimum of five (5) channels for systems operating a total
activated channel capacity of less than 550 MHz, and ten (10) channels
for systems operating a total activated channel capacity of 550 MHz or
greater. The channels selected for testing must be representative of
all the channels within the cable television system.
(i) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct
semi-annual proof-of-performance tests of that system, to determine the
extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set
forth in Sec. 76.605(b)(4) as follows. The visual signal level on each
channel shall be measured and recorded, along with the date and time of
the measurement, once every six hours (at intervals of not less than
five hours or no more than seven hours after the previous measurement),
to include the warmest and the coldest times, during a 24-hour period
in January or February and in July or August.
(ii) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct
triennial proof-of-performance tests of its system to determine the
extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set
forth in Sec. 76.605(b)(11).
(3) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a
cable television system complies with the standards set forth in Sec.
76.605(c)(1) shall be made on each of the QAM or similar video channels
of that system. Unless otherwise as noted, proof-of-performance tests
for all other standards in Sec. 76.605(c) shall be made on a minimum
of five (5) channels for systems operating a total activated channel
capacity of less than 550 MHz, and ten (10) channels for systems
operating a total activated channel capacity of 550 MHz or greater. The
channels selected for testing must be representative of all the
channels within the cable television system.
(4) For cable televisions systems which operate both NTSC or
similar and QAM of similar channels, proof-of-performance tests to
determine the extent to which the cable televisions system complies
with Sec. 76.605(b)(1), (2), (6) through (11) and 76.605(c)(1) shall
be apportioned relative to the proportion of channels allocated to each
transmission type, except that at no time shall less than two channels
of a particular type be tested.
* * * * *
10. Revise Sec. 76.602 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.602 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 inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th. St. SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554 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) ATSC. The
following materials are available from Advanced Television Systems
Committee (ATSC), 1776 K Street NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006;
phone: 202-872-9160; or online at http://www.atsc.org/standards.html.
(1) ATSC A/65D: ``ATSC Standard: Program and System Information
Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable (Revision D),'' April 14,
2009, IBR approved for Sec. 76.640.
(2) ATSC A/85:2011 ``ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for
Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television,''
(July 25, 2011) (``ATSC A/85 RP''), IBR approved for Sec. 76.607.
(c) CEA. The following materials are available from Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA), 1919 S. Eads St., Arlington, VA 22202;
phone: 866-858-1555; or online at http://www.ce.org/standards.
(1) CEA-542-C, ``CEA Standard: Cable Television Channel
Identification Plan,'' July 2009, IBR approved for Sec. 76.605.
(2) CEA-931-C, ``Remote Control Command Pass-through Standard for
Home Networking,'' 2007, IBR approved for Sec. 76.640.
(d) SCTE. The following materials are available from Society of
Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE), 140 Philips Road, Exton, PA
19341-1318; phone: 800-542-5040; or online at http://www.scte.org/standards/Standards_Available.aspx.
(1) ANSI/SCTE 26 2010 (formerly DVS 194): ``Home Digital Network
Interface Specification with Copy Protection,'' 2010, IBR approved for
Sec. 76.640.
(2) ANSI/SCTE 28 2012 (formerly DVS 295): ``Host-POD Interface
Standard,'' 2012, IBR approved for Sec. 76.640.
(3) ANSI/SCTE 40 2011 (formerly DVS 313), ``Digital Cable Network
Interface Standard,'' 2011, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 76.605 and
76.640.
(4) ANSI/SCTE 41 2011 (formerly DVS 301): ``POD Copy Protection
System,'' 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 76.640.
(5) ANSI/SCTE 54 2009 (formerly DVS 241), ``Digital Video Service
Multiplex and Transport System Standard for Cable Television,'' 2009,
IBR approved for Sec. 76.640.
(6) ANSI/SCTE 65 2008 (formerly DVS 234), ``Service Information
Delivered Out-of-Band for Digital Cable Television,'' 2008, IBR
approved for Sec. 76.640.
(e) Some standards listed above are also available for purchase
from the following sources:
(1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; phone: 212-642-4980; or online
at http://webstore.ansi.org/. Show citation box
(2) Global Engineering Documents (standards reseller), 15 Inverness
Way East, Englewood, CO 80112; phone: 800-854-7179; or online at http://global.ihs.com.
11. Revise Sec. 76.605 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.605 Technical standards.
(a) The following requirements apply to the performance of a cable
television system as measured at any subscriber terminal with a matched
impedance at the termination point or at the output of the modulating
or processing equipment (generally the headend) of the cable television
system or otherwise noted. The requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section are applicable to each NTSC or similar video downstream cable
[[Page 61371]]
television channel in the system, the requirements of paragraph (c) of
this section are applicable to each QAM or similar video downstream
cable television channel in the system, and the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section are applicable to all downstream cable
television channels in the system. Cable television systems utilizing
other technologies to distribute programming must comply with paragraph
(e) of this section.
(b) For each NTSC or similar video downstream cable television
channel in the system:
(1)(i) The cable television channels delivered to the subscriber's
terminal shall be capable of being received and displayed by TV
broadcast receivers used for off-the-air reception of TV broadcast
signals, as authorized under part 73 of this chapter; and
(ii) Cable television systems shall transmit signals to subscriber
premises equipment on frequencies in accordance with the channel
allocation plan set forth in CEA-542-C: ``Standard: Cable Television
Channel Identification Plan,'' (Incorporated by reference, see Sec.
76.602).
(2) The aural center frequency of the aural carrier must be 4.5 MHz
5 kHz above the frequency of the visual carrier at the
output of the modulating or processing equipment of a cable television
system, and at the subscriber terminal.
(3) The visual signal level, across a terminating impedance which
correctly matches the internal impedance of the cable system as viewed
from the subscriber terminal, shall not be less than 1 millivolt across
an internal impedance of 75 ohms (0 dBmV). Additionally, as measured at
the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the
subscriber tap, it shall not be less than 1.41 millivolts across an
internal impedance of 75 ohms (+3 dBmV). (At other impedance values,
the minimum visual signal level, as viewed from the subscriber
terminal, shall be the square root of 0.0133 (Z) millivolts and, as
measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is
connected to the subscriber tap, shall be 2 times the square root of
0.00662(Z) millivolts, where Z is the appropriate impedance value.)
(4) The visual signal level on each channel, as measured at the end
of a 30 meter cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, shall
not vary more than 8 decibels within any six-month interval, which must
include four tests performed in six-hour increments during a 24-hour
period in July or August and during a 24-hour period in January or
February, and shall be maintained within:
(i) 3 decibels (dB) of the visual signal level of any visual
carrier within a 6 MHz nominal frequency separation;
(ii) 10 dB of the visual signal level on any other channel on a
cable television system of up to 300 MHz of cable distribution system
upper frequency limit, with a 1 dB increase for each additional 100 MHz
of cable distribution system upper frequency limit (e.g., 11 dB for a
system at 301-400 MHz; 12 dB for a system at 401-500 MHz, etc.); and
(iii) A maximum level such that signal degradation due to overload
in the subscriber's receiver or terminal does not occur.
(5) The rms voltage of the aural signal shall be maintained between
10 and 17 decibels below the associated visual signal level. This
requirement must be met both at the subscriber terminal and at the
output of the modulating and processing equipment (generally the
headend). For subscriber terminals that use equipment which modulate
and remodulate the signal (e.g., baseband converters), the rms voltage
of the aural signal shall be maintained between 6.5 and 17 decibels
below the associated visual signal level at the subscriber terminal.
(6) The amplitude characteristic shall be within a range of 2 decibels from 0.75 MHz to 5.0 MHz above the lower boundary
frequency of the cable television channel, referenced to the average of
the highest and lowest amplitudes within these frequency boundaries.
The amplitude characteristic shall be measured at the subscriber
terminal.
(7) The ratio of RF visual signal level to system noise shall not
be less than 43 decibels. For class I cable television channels, the
requirements of this section are applicable only to:
(i) Each signal which is delivered by a cable television system to
subscribers within the predicted Grade B or noise-limited service
contour, as appropriate, for that signal;
(ii) Each signal which is first picked up within its predicted
Grade B or noise-limited service contour, as appropriate;
(iii) Each signal that is first received by the cable television
system by direct video feed from a TV broadcast station, a low power TV
station, or a TV translator station.
(8) The ratio of visual signal level to the rms amplitude of any
coherent disturbances such as intermodulation products, second and
third order distortions or discrete-frequency interfering signals not
operating on proper offset assignments shall be as follows:
(i) The ratio of visual signal level to coherent disturbances shall
not be less than 51 decibels for noncoherent channel cable television
systems, when measured with modulated carriers and time averaged; and
(ii) The ratio of visual signal level to coherent disturbances
which are frequency-coincident with the visual carrier shall not be
less than 47 decibels for coherent channel cable systems, when measured
with modulated carriers and time averaged.
(9) The terminal isolation provided to each subscriber terminal:
(i) Shall not be less than 18 decibels. In lieu of periodic
testing, the cable operator may use specifications provided by the
manufacturer for the terminal isolation equipment to meet this
standard; and
(ii) Shall be sufficient to prevent reflections caused by open-
circuited or short-circuited subscriber terminals from producing
visible picture impairments at any other subscriber terminal.
(10) The peak-to-peak variation in visual signal level caused by
undesired low frequency disturbances (hum or repetitive transients)
generated within the system, or by inadequate low frequency response,
shall not exceed 3 percent of the visual signal level. Measurements
made on a single channel using a single unmodulated carrier may be used
to demonstrate compliance with this parameter at each test location.
(11) The following requirements apply to the performance of the
cable television system as measured at the output of the modulating or
processing equipment (generally the headend) of the system:
(i) The chrominance-luminance delay inequality (or chroma delay),
which is the change in delay time of the chrominance component of the
signal relative to the luminance component, shall be within 170
nanoseconds.
(ii) The differential gain for the color subcarrier of the
television signal, which is measured as the difference in amplitude
between the largest and smallest segments of the chrominance signal
(divided by the largest and expressed in percent), shall not exceed
20%.
(iii) The differential phase for the color subcarrier of the
television signal which is measured as the largest phase difference in
degrees between each segment of the chrominance signal and reference
segment (the segment at the blanking level of 0 IRE), shall not exceed
10 degrees.
[[Page 61372]]
(c) For each downstream QAM or similar video downstream cable
television channel in the system the technical requirements of ANSI/
SCTE 40 2011 (Formerly DVS 313): ``Digital Cable Network Interface
Standard'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 76.602) shall apply,
provided:
(1) For purposes of demonstrating compliance with proof-of-
performance, the RF transmission characteristics of Table 4 shall be
tested and recorded pursuant to Sec. Sec. 76.601 and 76.1706.
(2) For purposes of demonstrating compliance with proof-of-
performance, the Adjacent Channel Characteristics of Table 6 and the
Nominal Relative Carrier Power Levels of Table 5 shall be tested and
recorded pursuant to Sec. Sec. 76.601 and 76.1706.
(d) As an exception to the general provision requiring measurements
to be made at subscriber terminals, and without regard to the type of
signals carried by the cable television system, signal leakage shall be
limited as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal leakage Distance in
Frequencies limit meters (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analog signals less than and 15[micro]V/m....... 30
including 54 MHz, and over 216
MHz.
Digital signals less than and 13.1[micro]V/m..... 30
including 54 MHz, and over 216
MHz.
Analog signals over 54 MHz up to 20[micro]V/m....... 3
and including 216 MHz.
Digital signals over 54 MHz up 17.4[micro]V/m..... 3
to and including 216 MHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where analog NTSC or similar signals are measured in accordance
with the procedures outlined in Sec. 76.609(h).
(e) Cable television systems distributing signals by methods other
than 6 MHz NTSC or similar analog channels or 6 MHz QAM or similar
channels on conventional coaxial or hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems
and which, because of their basic design, cannot comply with one or
more of the technical standards set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, may be permitted to operate upon Commission approval on a
case-by-case basis. To obtain Commission approval, the operator must
submit to the Commission its own proof-of-performance plan for ensuring
subscribers receive good quality signals.
Note 1: Local franchising authorities of systems serving fewer
than 1000 subscribers may adopt standards less stringent than those
in Sec. 76.605(b) and (c). Any such agreement shall be reduced to
writing and be associated with the system's proof-of-performance
records.
Note 2: For systems serving rural areas as defined in Sec.
76.5, the system may negotiate with its local franchising authority
for standards less stringent than those in Sec. Sec. 76.605(b)(3),
76.605(b)(7), 76.605(b)(8), 76.605(b)(10) and 76.605(b)(11). Any
such agreement shall be reduced to writing and be associated with
the system's proof-of-performance records.
Note 3: The requirements of this section shall not apply to
devices subject to the TV interface device rules under part 15 of
this chapter.
Note 4: Should subscriber complaints arise from a system
failing to meet Sec. 76.605(b)(10), the cable operator will be
required to remedy the complaint and perform test measurements on
Sec. 76.605(b)(10) containing the full number of channels as
indicated in Sec. 76.601(b)(2) at the complaining subscriber's
terminal. Further, should the problem be found to be system-wide,
the Commission may order that the full number of channels as
indicated in Sec. 76.601(b)(2) be tested at all required locations
for future proof-of-performance tests.
Note 5: No State or franchising authority may prohibit,
condition, or restrict a cable system's use of any type of
subscriber equipment or any transmission technology.
12. Revise Sec. 76.606 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.606 Closed captioning.
(a) The operator of each cable television system shall not take any
action to remove or alter closed captioning data contained on line 21
of the vertical blanking interval.
(b) The operator of each cable television system shall deliver
intact closed captioning data contained on line 21 of the vertical
blanking interval, as it arrives at the headend or from another
origination source, to subscriber terminals and (when so delivered to
the cable system) in a format that can be recovered and displayed by
decoders meeting Sec. 79.101 of this chapter.
13. Revise Sec. 76.610 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.610 Operation in the frequency bands 108-137 MHz and 225-400
MHz--scope of application.
The provisions of Sec. Sec. 76.605(d), 76.611, 76.612, 76.613,
76.614, 76.616, 76.617, 76.1803 and 76.1804 are applicable to all MVPDs
(cable and non-cable) transmitting analog carriers or other signal
components carried at an average power level equal to or greater than
10-4 watts across a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond
period or transmitting digital carriers or other signal components at
an average power level of 75.85 microwatts across a 25 kHz bandwidth in
any 160 microsecond period at any point in the cable distribution
system in the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz for any purpose.
Exception: Non-cable MVPDs serving less than 1000 subscribers and less
than 1000 units do not have to comply with Sec. 76.1803.
14. Revise Sec. 76.611(a)(1), (a)(2), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.611 Cable television basic signal leakage performance
criteria.
(a) * * *
(1) prior to carriage of signals in the aeronautical radio bands
and at least once each calendar year, with no more than 12 months
between successive tests thereafter, based on a sampling of at least
75% of the cable strand, and including any portion of the cable system
which are known to have or can reasonably be expected to have less
leakage integrity than the average of the system, the cable operator
demonstrates compliance with a cumulative signal leakage index by
showing either that (i) 10 log I3000 is equal to or less
than -7 for analog systems and equal to or less than -8.2 for digital
systems or (ii) 10 log I[infin] is equal to or less than 64
for analog systems and equal to or less than 62.8 for digital systems,
using one of the following formula, except that no system of diameter
greater than 160 kilometers may utilize I3000:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC12.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC12.001
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC12.002
ri is the distance (in meters) between the leakage source
and the center of the cable television system;
[thgr] is the fraction of the system cable length actually examined
for leakage sources and is equal to the strand kilometers (strand
miles) of plant tested divided by
[[Page 61373]]
the total strand kilometers (strand miles) in the plant;
Ri is the slant height distance (in meters) from leakage
source i to a point 3000 meters above the center of the cable
television system;
Ei is the electric field strength in microvolts per meter
([micro]V/m) measured 3 meters from the leak i; and
n is the number of leaks found of field strength equal to or greater
than 50 [micro]V/m for analog leaks measured pursuant to Sec.
76.609(h) or 43.6 [micro]V/m for digital leaks.
The sum is carried over all leaks i detected in the cable examined;
or
(2) prior to carriage of signals in the aeronautical radio bands
and at least once each calendar year, with no more than 12 months
between successive tests thereafter, the cable operator demonstrates by
measurement in the airspace that at no point does the field strength
generated by the cable system exceed 10 microvolts per meter ([micro]V/
m) RMS for an offset analog signal or 8.7 microvolts per meter
([micro]V/m) RMS for a digital signal at an altitude of 450 meters
above the average terrain of the cable system. The measurement system
(including the receiving antenna) shall be calibrated against a known
field of 10 [micro]V/m RMS produced by a well characterized antenna
consisting of orthogonal resonant dipoles, both parallel to and one
quarter wavelength above the ground plane of a diameter of two meters
or more at ground level. The dipoles shall have centers collocated and
be excited 90 degrees apart. The half-power bandwidth of the detector
shall be 25 kHz. If an aeronautical receiver is used for this purpose
it shall meet the standards of the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics (RCTA) for aeronautical communications receivers. The
aircraft antenna shall be horizontally polarized. Calibration shall be
made in the community unit or, if more than one, in any of the
community units of the physical system within a reasonable time period
to performing the measurements. If data is recorded digitally the 90th
percentile level of points recorded over the cable system shall not
exceed 8.7 [micro]V/m or 10 [micro]V/m RMS as indicated above; if
analog recordings is used the peak values of the curves, when smoothed
according to good engineering practices, shall not exceed 8.7 [micro]V/
m or 10 [micro]V/m RMS for digital or analog leakage, respectively.
* * * * *
(e) Prior to providing service to any subscriber on a new section
of cable plant, the operator shall show compliance with either: (1) The
basic signal leakage criteria in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this section for the entire plant in operation or (2) a
showing shall be made indicating that no individual leak in the new
section of the plant exceeds 20 [micro]V/m at 3 meters in accordance
with Sec. 76.609 of the rules for analog systems or 17.4 [micro]V/m at
3 meters for digital systems.
* * * * *
15. Revise Sec. 76.612 introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 76.612 Cable television frequency separation standards.
All cable television systems which operate analog NTSC or similar
channels in the frequency bands 108-137 MHZ and 225-400 MHz shall
comply with the following frequency separation standards for each NTSC
or similar channel:
* * * * *
16. Revise Sec. 76.614 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.614 Cable television regular monitoring.
Cable television operators transmitting carriers in the frequency
bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz shall provide for a program of regular
monitoring for signal leakage by substantially covering the plant every
three months. The incorporation of this monitoring program into the
daily activities of existing service personnel in the discharge of
their normal duties will generally cover all portions of the system and
will therefore meet this requirement. Monitoring equipment and
procedures utilized by a cable operator shall be adequate to detect a
leakage source from an analog signal which produces a field strength in
these bands of 20 [micro]V/m or greater at a distance of 3 meters and
from a digital signal which produces a field strength in these bands of
17.4 [micro]V/m or greater at a distance of 3 meters. During regular
monitoring, any analog leakage source which produces a field strength
of 20 [micro]V/m or greater at a distance of 3 meters or digital
leakage source which produces a field strength of 17.4 [micro]V/m or
greater at a distance of 3 meters in the aeronautical radio frequency
bands shall be noted and such leakage sources shall be repaired within
a reasonable period of time.
Note 1 to Sec. 76.614: Section 76.1706 contains signal leakage
recordkeeping requirements applicable to cable operators.
17. Revise Sec. 76.640(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital cable products on
digital cable systems.
* * * * *
(b) Cable operators shall support unidirectional digital cable
products, as defined in Sec. 15.123 of this chapter, through the
provisioning of Point of Deployment modules (PODs) and services, as
follows:
(1) Digital cable systems with an activated channel capacity of 750
MHz or greater shall comply with the following technical standards and
requirements:
(i) ANSI/SCTE 40 2011 (formerly DVS 313): ``Digital Cable Network
Interface Standard'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 76.602),
provided that the ``transit delay for most distant customer''
requirement in Table 4.3 is not mandatory.
(ii) ANSI/SCTE 65 2008 (formerly DVS 234): ``Service Information
Delivered Out-of-Band for Digital Cable Television'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 76.602), provided however that the referenced
Source Name Subtable shall be provided for Profiles 1, 2, and 3.
(iii) ANSI/SCTE 54 2009 (formerly DVS 241): ``Digital Video Service
Multiplex and Transport System Standard for Cable Television''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 76.602).
(iv) For each digital transport stream that includes one or more
services carried in-the-clear, such transport stream shall include
virtual channel data in-band in the form of ATSC A/65D: ``ATSC
Standard: Program and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial
Broadcast and Cable (Revision D)'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 76.602), when available from the content provider. With respect
to in-band transport:
(A) * * *
(B) * * *
(C) The format of event information data format shall conform to
ATSC A/65D: ``ATSC Standard: Program and System Information Protocol
for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable (Revision D)'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 76.602);
(D) * * *
(E) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) A virtual channel table shall be provided via the extended
channel interface from the POD module. Tables to be included shall
conform to ANSI/SCTE 65 2008 (formerly DVS 234): ``Service Information
Delivered Out-of-Band for Digital Cable Television'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 76.602).
(C) Event information data when present shall conform to ANSI/SCTE
65 2008 (formerly DVS 234): ``Service Information Delivered Out-of-Band
for Digital Cable Television'' (incorporated
[[Page 61374]]
by reference, see Sec. 76.602) (profiles 4 or higher).
(D) * * *
(E) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) ANSI/SCTE 28 2012 (formerly DVS 295): ``Host-POD Interface
Standard'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 76.602).
(ii) SCTE 41 2011 (formerly DVS 301): ``POD Copy Protection
System'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 76.602).
* * * * *
18. Amend Sec. 76.1204 by revising paragraph (a), removing
paragraph (e), and redesignating (f) as paragraph (e) and revising
newly redesignated paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access
or security functions.
(a)(1) A multichannel video programming distributor that utilizes
navigation devices to perform conditional access functions shall make
available equipment that incorporates only the conditional access
functions of such devices. No multichannel video programming
distributor subject to this section shall place in service new
navigation devices for sale, lease, or use that perform both
conditional access and other functions in a single integrated device.
* * * * *
(e) Paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) of this section shall not apply
to the provision of any navigation device that:
(1) Employs conditional access mechanisms only to access analog
video programming;
(2) Is capable only of providing access to analog video programming
offered over a multichannel video programming distribution system; and
(3) Does not provide access to any digital transmission of
multichannel video programming or any other digital service through any
receiving, decoding, conditional access, or other function, including
any conversion of digital programming or service to an analog format.
19. Revise Sec. 76.1205(b) introductory text and paragraph (b)(5)
to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1205 CableCARD support.
* * * * *
(b) A multichannel video programming provider that is subject to
the requirements of Sec. 76.640 must:
* * * * *
(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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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:
(A) An allocation determination approved by a local, state, or
Federal government entity;
(B)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
(C) The actual cost of the navigation device amortized over a
period of no more than 60 months.
* * * * *
20. Revise Sec. 76.1508 (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1508 Network non-duplication.
(a) Sections 76.92 through 76.95 shall apply to open video systems
in accordance with the provisions contained in this section.
* * * * *
21. Revise Sec. 76.1509 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity.
(a) Sections 76.101 through 76.110 shall apply to open video
systems in accordance with the provisions contained in this section.
(b) Any provision of Sec. 76.101 that refers to a ``cable
community unit'' shall apply to an open video system.
(c) Any provision of Sec. 76.105 that refers to a ``cable system
operator'' or ``cable television system operator'' shall apply to an
open video system operator. Any provision of Sec. 76.105 that refers
to a ``cable system'' or ``cable television system'' shall apply to an
open video system except Sec. 76.105(c) which shall apply to an open
video system operator. Open video system operators shall make all
notifications and information regarding exercise of syndicated program
exclusivity rights immediately available to all appropriate video
programming provider on the system. An open video system operator shall
not be subject to sanctions for any violation of these rules by an
unaffiliated program supplier if the operator provided proper notices
to the program supplier and subsequently took prompt steps to stop the
distribution of the infringing program once it was notified of a
violation.
(d) Any provision of Sec. 76.106 that refers to a ``cable
community'' shall apply to an open video system community. Any
provision of Sec. 76.106 that refers to a ``cable community unit'' or
``community unit'' shall apply to an open video system or that portion
of an open video system that operates or will operate within a separate
and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated
communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete
unincorporated areas). Any provision of Sec. Sec. 76.106 through
76.108 that refers to a ``cable system'' shall apply to an open video
system.
(e) Any provision of Sec. 76.109 that refers to ``cable
television'' or a ``cable system'' shall apply to an open video system.
(f) Any provision of Sec. 76.110 that refers to a ``community
unit'' shall apply to an open video system or that portion of an open
video system that is affected by this rule.
22. Revise Sec. 76.1510 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions.
The following sections within part 76 shall also apply to open
video systems: Sec. Sec. 76.71, 76.73, 76.75, 76.77, 76.79,
[[Page 61375]]
76.1702, and 76.1802 (Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements);
Sec. Sec. 76.503 and 76.504 (ownership restrictions); Sec. 76.981
(negative option billing); and Sec. Sec. 76.1300, 76.1301 and 76.1302
(regulation of carriage agreements); Sec. 76.610 (signal leakage
restrictions); provided, however, that these sections shall apply to
open video systems only to the extent that they do not conflict with
this subpart S. Section 631 of the Communications Act (subscriber
privacy) shall also apply to open video systems.
23. Revise Sec. 76.1601 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals.
A cable operator shall provide written notice to any broadcast
television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from
carriage or repositioning that station. Such notification shall also be
provided to subscribers of the cable system.
Note 1 to Sec. 76.1601: No deletion or repositioning of a local
commercial television station shall occur during a period in which
major television ratings services measure the size of audiences of
local television stations. For this purpose, such periods are the
four national four-week ratings periods--generally including
February, May, July and November--commonly known as audience sweeps.
24. Revise Sec. 76.1602(b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1602 Customer service--general information.
* * * * *
(b) The cable operator shall provide written information on each of
the following areas at the time of installation of service, at least
annually to all subscribers, and at any time upon request:
* * * * *
Sec. 76.1610 [Amended]
25. Amend Sec. 76.1610 by removing paragraphs (f) and (g).
26. Revise Sec. 76.1701(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1701 Political file.
* * * * *
(d) Where origination cablecasting material is a political matter
or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public
importance and a corporation, committee, association or other
unincorporated group, or other entity is paying for or furnishing the
matter, the system operator shall, in addition to making the
announcement required by Sec. 76.1615, require that a list of the
chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of
the board of directors of the corporation, committee, association or
other unincorporated group, or other entity shall be made available for
public inspection at the local office of the system. Such lists shall
be kept and made available for two years.
27. Revise Sec. 76.1804 section heading and introductory paragraph
to read as follows:
Sec. 76.1804 Aeronautical frequencies notification.
An MVPD shall notify the Commission before transmitting any carrier
of other signal component with an average power level across a 30 kHz
bandwidth in any 2.5 millisecond time period equal to or greater than
10-5 watts at any point in the cable distribution system on
any new frequency or frequencies in the aeronautical radio frequency
bands (108-137 MHz, 225-400 MHz). The notification shall be made on FCC
Form 321. Such notification shall include:
* * * * *
Sec. 76.1909 [Removed]
28. Remove Sec. 76.1909.
[FR Doc. 2012-24641 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P