[Federal Register: November 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 66946-66953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no06-54]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket 06-189; FCC 06-154]
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for
the Delivery of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video
programming. This document solicits information from the public for use
in preparing this year's competition report that is to be submitted to
Congress. Comments and data submitted by parties will be used in
conjunction with publicly available information and filings submitted
in relevant Commission proceedings to assess the extent of competition
in the market for the delivery of video programming.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 29,
2006, and reply comments are due on or before December 29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB 06-189, by any of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format
[[Page 66947]]
documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail:
FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Anne Levine, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in MB Docket No. 06-189, FCC 06-154, adopted
October 12, 2006, and released October 20, 2006. The complete text of
this NOI is available for inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257,
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is also available on the Commission's Internet Site at http://www.fcc.gov.
Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202)
418-7365. The complete text of the NOI may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Company and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or by e-mail
fcc@bcpiweb.com, or via its website http://www.bcpiweb.com.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
directs the Commission to report to Congress annually on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. This
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits data and information on for our
thirteenth annual report (2006 Report). We request information,
comments, and analyses that will allow us to evaluate the status of
competition in the video marketplace, changes in the market since the
2005 Report, prospects for new entrants to that market, factors that
have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect these factors
are having on consumers' access to video programming.
2. We encourage thorough and substantive submissions from industry
participants and state and local regulators with the best knowledge of
the questions and issues raised to ensure the accuracy and usefulness
of this Report. We will augment reported information with submissions
in other Commission proceedings. In the past, we have had to rely on
data from publicly available sources when information has not been
provided directly by industry participants and will do so again if
necessary. Nevertheless, we are concerned that such publicly available
information may not be adequate, especially when various sources
provide inconsistent data.
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
3. We ask commenters to provide data on video programming
distributors, including cable systems; direct broadcast satellite (DBS)
operators; large home satellite dish (C-Band) providers; broadband
service providers (BSPs); private cable operators (PCO), also called
satellite master antenna television systems; open video systems (OVS);
wireless cable systems using frequencies in the broadband radio and
educational broadband services; local exchange carrier (LEC) systems;
utility-operated systems; commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) and
other wireless providers; and over-the-air broadcast television
stations. We seek information on video programming distributed over the
Internet and via Internet Protocol (IP) networks and through home video
sales and rentals. We also seek information that will allow us to
evaluate horizontal concentration in the video marketplace, vertical
integration between programming distributors and programming services,
and other issues relating to the programming available to consumers. We
request information on technical issues, including equipment and
emerging services. We seek comments regarding developments in foreign
markets, as they may contribute to our understanding of domestic
markets. Where possible and relevant, we request data as of June 30,
2006.
4. We seek information and statistical data for each type of
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), including the number
of homes passed by each wired technology; the number of homes capable
of receiving service via each wireless technology; the number of
subscribers and penetration rates for each service (e.g., basic cable
service tier (BST), cable programming service tier (CPST), premium, or
their equivalents provided by non-cable MVPDs, a la carte, pay-per-
view, and video-on-demand (VOD) services); available channel capacity
of the system; the number, type, and identity of video programming
channels offered, the channel capacity required for such offerings and
the tiers on which such programming is offered; and the channel
capacity used for non-video services; prices charged for various
programming packages and the required equipment; industry and
individual firm financial information; information on how video
programming distributors compare in terms of relative size and
financial resources; data that measure the audience reach of video
programming networks as well as relative control over the video
distribution market; and information on video distributor expansion
into non-video markets such as local telephony, high-speed Internet
access, wireless telephone service; and other new technologies being
considered, tested, or deployed.
5. We are interested in data and information on the number of homes
that have a choice of MVPD services. How many households can receive
service from one or more providers (e.g., DBS, wireless cable, PCO) as
well as an incumbent cable provider? How many consumers have access to
wireline overbuilders and why is the availability of wireline
alternatives low relative to wireless alternatives? Where does wireline
competition exist, and where is entry likely in the near future? Where
has wireline competition once existed but failed? What effect has
competition among MVPDs had on consumers (e.g., prices, programming
choices, quality of service, and the introduction of video and non-
video advanced services)?
6. To evaluate substitution between MVPD technologies, we seek data
on relative prices of similar services offered by different types of
competitors. What effect does the bundling (packaging) of video, voice,
and high-speed data services have on head-to-head competition? We are
interested in investigating methods for comparing service packages
among MVPDs.
7. Barriers to entry can be regulatory, technological, or financial
in origin. We seek to understand what these barriers are and how they
impede competition in the MVPD marketplace. Are there any existing
Commission regulations or statutory provisions that prevent or
discourage new entrants from investing in, or deploying broadband or
other networks for the purpose of offering consumers video services?
Are there steps that Congress and the Commission may take to reduce
barriers to competition in the video market, or to increase consumer
choice? We request comments on the effects that franchising and other
local and state regulations have on competition in the video
marketplace.
8. We request detailed information about programming networks,
including ownership, the type of programming networks (e.g., national,
regional, local),
[[Page 66948]]
and the genre of programming networks (e.g., sports, news, children's,
general entertainment, foreign language). We seek information on
existing, planned, and terminated or merged programming networks to
assess the changes over the past year in the amount and type of video
programming that is available to consumers. We also seek information on
the nature of trends in the status of programming networks' vertical
integration with cable operators and with other media interests. We
note that programming networks are being offered in a variety of forms
(e.g., multiplexed networks, VOD, shared channels), and we seek comment
on whether and how to count such programming networks for assessing
trends in vertical integration. We ask commenters to provide
information regarding the delivery mode (i.e., satellite or terrestrial
delivery) of each national and regional network, as we are unaware of
any comprehensive source of this information.
9. We request information on children's, locally-originated, and
local news and community affairs programming distributed to consumers
by broadcasters and MVPDs. To what extent is programming offered in
languages other than English, nationally and locally? How is such
programming packaged (i.e., part of CPST, digital tier, separate tier)?
We also seek comment regarding public, educational, and governmental
access channels, including the number of channels used by cable
operators and other MVPDs for this purpose. We ask for information on
the programming provided by DBS operators in compliance with their
public interest obligation. We also seek information on the use of
leased access channels, and ask whether they provide an opportunity for
independent programmers to distribute their programming.
10. We seek comment on programmers' access to carriage by MVPDs. We
request information on the number of independent networks that launched
in the past year, including total subscribers; the distributors that
carry them; the manner of carriage (e.g., expanded basic, digital tier,
themed digital tier, VOD) and their ongoing efforts to obtain further
distribution by cable, DBS, and other service providers. Specifically,
we request comment regarding any difficulties programming networks
encounter when launching a new service and information on the kinds of
carriage arrangements that are required to secure MVPD carriage.
11. We seek information on how video programming distributors
package and market their programming. To what extent are MVPDs offering
programming on an a la carte basis or in mixed bundles, themed tiers,
and subscriber-selected tiers? We seek information on family friendly
programming, including the cost and content of these packages. Are
family tiers offered on a stand-alone basis or must consumers subscribe
to other tiers (e.g., basic service tier, digital tier) to receive
them? Do subscribers need additional equipment to receive the family
tier? Do MVPDs offer or plan to offer consumers more choice in channel
selection, specifically a la carte or themed tiers, rather than
traditional tiering of programming services?
12. We seek to assess the extent to which MVPDs have been able to
acquire or license programming owned by other video distributors. Is
there specific programming, national or regional/local, that is
unavailable to either cable or non-cable operators and, if so, why?
What effect does vertical integration have on competing distributors'
ability to obtain programming? Are there certain ``must-have''
programming services, or genres of services (e.g., regional sports)
without which competitive video service providers may find themselves
unable to compete effectively? We also seek information on exclusive
contracts for all types of programming.
13. We request comment on the effectiveness of our program access,
program carriage, and channel occupancy rules. What, if any, video
programming services that were once delivered to MVPDs by satellite
have been migrated to terrestrial delivery? Which terrestrially
delivered networks owned by or affiliated with a program distributor
are unavailable to some MVPDs under the so-called terrestrial exemption
to the Commission's program access rules? What exclusive programming
arrangements exist between programmers and MVPDs? With the advent of
VOD, what are the competitive implications of video programming
distributors securing exclusive rights to programming for inclusion in
their VOD offerings?
14. We request comment on competition issues specific to video
programming distribution in rural and smaller markets, including the
number of MVPDs serving small and rural markets, their subscribership,
the services and video programming options they offer, and the cost for
video services. How does competition differ between rural and smaller
markets and larger, urban areas? We seek information on alternative
technologies, such as digital subscriber line (DSL) and fiber-based
Internet Protocol television (IPTV) that small and rural operators are
adopting. We seek information on any existing differences in program
carriage agreements between larger urban systems and those in small or
rural areas, including information on whether buying cooperatives help
small or rural operators obtain video programming at discounted rates.
15. We seek specific information regarding MVPD service in Alaska
and Hawaii. We are interested in whether, and how, cable, DBS, and
other MVPD services offered in these states differ from that provided
in other states. How do prices for the various packages of service
compare to the average national price for such MVPD services? We also
seek information on any differences in the equipment needed by
consumers to receive video programming service.
16. We also seek comment on any factors that are unique to
competition in multiple dwelling units (MDUs). How common is it for
consumers to have choices among video programming services within MDUs?
17. We also invite commenters to provide information on access to
programming by persons with disabilities. We seek comment on what, if
any, concerns industry and the public have with meeting the upcoming
increased captioning requirements for new Spanish language and ``pre-
rule'' English language programming. We seek information on the
quality, accuracy, placement, technology, and any instances of missing
or delayed captions, and the amount of digital programming that
contains closed captions translated from analog closed captions. We
seek comment on the extent to which digital programming may not be
captioned and ask why this is the case. We seek information on the
availability of video description, currently provided by programmers on
a voluntary basis, and the amount and types of video programming that
includes video description.
Cable Television Service
18. For the 2006 Report, we seek updated information on the
performance of the cable television industry. We request information
regarding cable operators' continuing investments to upgrade their
plant and equipment to increase channel capacity, create digital
services, or offer advanced services. We request information on the
development of various methods or technologies to increase system
capacity, such as switched digital video technology.
19. For individual cable multiple system operators (MSOs), we
request information such as the number of systems upgraded, the channel
capacity
[[Page 66949]]
(in terms of both analog and digital channel capacity and the
compression ratio used for digital transmissions) resulting from
upgrades, the number of systems, the number of homes passed by, and the
number of subscribers to digital tier services. To what extent is the
new capacity used for non-video services? We also seek information on
cable operators who have launched or plan to launch digital simulcasts
of their analog channel lineups on one or more of their systems. How
have the structure and price of service tiers change if a system
becomes all-digital? What are the implications for customer premises
equipment?
20. We seek information on cable system transactions during the
past year, including the names of the buyer and seller, the date and
type of transaction (i.e., sale or swap), the name and location of the
system, homes passed and number of subscribers, and the price. We
request data regarding the effect of clustering (the practice of
clustering, whereby operators concentrate their operations in specific
geographic areas) on competition in the video programming distribution
market.
21. We seek comment on whether cable operators are changing the way
they package programming and the role actual or potential competition
plays in any such changes. Do cable operators offer or plan to offer
genre packages or themed tiers (e.g., family, sports, or lifestyle
tiers) or programming on an a la carte basis? We seek information on
the programming included on these tiers and their cost, including
information on whether subscribers must purchase other tiers in order
to subscribe to these tiers or to purchase channels on an a la carte
basis.
22. Section 612(g) of the Communications Act provides that when
cable systems with 36 or more activated channels are available to 70
percent of households within the U.S. and are subscribed to by 70
percent of those households, the Commission may promulgate any
additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources.
Because data submitted in the record of the 2005 Report raised
questions as to whether the second prong of the so-called ``70/70
test'' had been satisfied, we requested further public comment on this
issue. We again request comment and supporting data that would be
useful for determining an accurate homes passed statistic, including
the number of homes passed by systems with 36 or more activated
channels. Have there been developments in the last year that would
suggest that the criteria specified under Section 612(g) have been met,
and if so, what additional rules should the Commission promulgate to
promote diversity of information sources?
23. We request data on the percentage of broadcast stations carried
on cable pursuant to retransmission consent agreements and the
percentage that are carried pursuant to the must carry provisions. We
also seek information on the percentage of required set-aside channels
that cable operators currently are using to carry local broadcast
signals. To what extent do cable operators pay cash for broadcast
station carriage rights, carry non-broadcast programming networks,
provide advertising time, or otherwise compensate broadcasters? We also
request comment on the effect of retransmission consent compensation on
cable rates, the ability of small cable operators to secure
retransmission consent on fair and reasonable terms, and the impact of
agreements that require the carriage of non-broadcast networks in
exchange for the right to carry local broadcast stations on MVPDs and
consumers.
24. We also request comment on the ``tier buy-through'' option
mandated by Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act, including the
percentage of subscribers taking advantage of this option; the
problems, if any, it creates; the manner in which cable operators make
this option known to the public; and the extent to which the option is
applicable (i.e., the extent to which programming is offered or
purchased on a per-program or per-channel basis).
Direct-to-Home Satellite Services
25. We seek information and data that explain the factors
contributing to DBS' growth in the video programming market and that
can help us assess whether those characteristics will continue to
position DBS as cable's principal competitor. Is there evidence of
meaningful price competition between DBS and cable? Do initial DBS
equipment costs or other factors prevent cable subscribers from
switching despite escalating monthly cable bills? Does the dynamic
between the platforms change in markets where DBS offers local
broadcast signals?
26. We seek updated information on the geographic characteristics
of direct to home (DTH) subscribership and, in particular, DBS
subscribership, and the factors that account for its relative strengths
or weaknesses in different markets (e.g., areas not served by a cable
or other wireline provider vs. other areas). To what extent do DBS
subscribers reside in areas not passed by cable systems? What
percentage of new DBS subscribers are former cable subscribers or
former C-Band subscribers?
27. We seek updated information on the deployment of DBS
satellites, and plans to expand DBS satellite fleets. Have these
additional satellites resulted in increased channel capacity or the
provision of advanced services? What technical methods are DBS
providers using to increase capacity?
28. We request updated information on the number of markets where
local-into-local television service is offered, or will be offered in
the near future, pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
of 1999, including the number and affiliation of the stations carried.
What percentage of DBS subscribers are opting for local programming
packages in markets where they are available? What is the cost to
consumers of local-into-local broadcast channels? How many markets
receive local high definition (HD) programming? What type of equipment
is necessary to receive local HD broadcasts and what is the cost of the
service and the equipment?
29. On December 8, 2004, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) was enacted, which added new
provisions to the Communications and Copyright Acts pertaining to the
retransmission by DBS of distant broadcast signals. Throughout 2005,
the Commission implemented the provisions of the SHVERA. We request
comment on the impact, if any, these provisions have had on the MVPD
marketplace. With respect to the new authorization to market broadcast
station signals deemed ``significantly viewed,'' to what extent are
such signals being made available to subscribers?
30. We request data on prices for DBS programming packages and
equipment, and the subscribership of different packages of programming.
Do DBS operators offer any programming on an a la carte basis and, if
so, what are the prices and subscription requirements associated with
such offerings? What additional charges, if any, are required to obtain
foreign language or foreign originated programming? We also request
information about programming packages available to C-Band subscribers,
including the types of packages offered, their prices, and the amount
of programming that is offered on an a la carte basis and that is free
and unscrambled.
Local Exchange Carriers
31. We previously reported that LEC entry into the MVPD industry
has been
[[Page 66950]]
limited, but that developments demonstrated renewed LEC interest in
providing video programming services. We seek information generally
regarding LECs that provide video programming services. Are there any
regulatory or statutory impediments to LEC entry in the video service
market? Do LECs target specific areas or markets for deployment and
what are the determinants of these decisions? How do LEC video services
compare to those available from incumbent cable or satellite operators?
Is there evidence of price competition between LECs, cable, and
satellite operators?
32. The major incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) have
marketing agreements with DBS providers under which they sell the DBS
operator's video services along with their telephony and DSL-based high
speed Internet access service. What effect have these agreements had on
LEC entry into the video industry? We also request comment on smaller
ILECs are reportedly constructing their own all-fiber or mostly fiber
networks to deliver video and advanced services to their existing voice
and data customers. Are there any unique barriers to entry into smaller
and rural video markets?
Broadband Service Providers and Open Video System Operators
33. We request information regarding the provision of video, voice,
and data services by broadband service providers (BSPs), including
municipal entities, and independent and competitive local exchange
carriers (CLEC) overbuilders (to the extent they operate
technologically advanced networks capable of providing video and non-
video services). Are video programming services offered in combination
with telephone and high-speed Internet access services and, if so, how
are rates affected by the packaging of multiple services? How many, or
what percentage of, BSP subscribers purchase video service alone, video
and telephony, video and high-speed Internet access services, or all
three services? We seek comment on the effect that BSPs have on video
competition, and the characteristics that facilitate BSP
competitiveness (e.g., number of subscribers, homes passed,
geographical reach, demographics, and business models). Are there still
significant barriers to entry? What are the technical and economic
factors that determine whether overbuild systems are successful?
Open Video System Operators
34. To what extent are new wireline entrants operating under the
open video system (OVS) classification, and what factors (e.g., state
and local franchising requirements) cause new entrants to choose the
OVS classification? How many subscribers receive video services from
OVS operators, and how many subscribers purchase the non-video services
offered? We seek information on why new entrants that have chosen the
OVS classification and on MVPD entrants that initially chose OVS
classification, but have since converted to another framework (e.g.,
Title VI cable service). Are video and non-video services offered in
combination with one another, and, if so, how are rates affected by the
packaging of multiple services? What effect do OVS operators have on
video competition?
Electric and Gas Utilities
35. We seek information regarding utility companies that provide
video services, including broadband over powerline technology. To what
extent are video programming services being bundled with telephone,
high-speed Internet access, or other utility services and how do these
offerings compare with those of incumbent cable operators?
Broadcast Television Service
36. We seek data and comment on the role of broadcast television in
the market for the delivery of video programming. We seek data on
broadcast network and station audience shares, especially relative to
those of non-broadcast programming services. We also request data on
broadcast advertising revenue. To what extent has cable gained local,
regional, or national advertising market share from broadcast
television? What forms of compensation are broadcasters receiving for
retransmission consent? In terms of additional sources of revenue, to
what extent are cable and DBS operators paying cash compensation for
retransmission of broadcast stations? If the compensation is not cash
based, how is it accounted for?
37. We request data on the number or percentage of households
relying solely on over-the-air broadcast television for programming. We
also seek information on the number of MVPD households, by type of MVPD
service, that rely on over-the-air reception for local broadcast
service on one or more of their television sets not connected to an
MVPD. We ask commenters to provide demographic information that might
assist us in classifying such households (e.g., urban vs. rural,
income, education levels, age).
38. We seek comment on a number of issues concerning the transition
to digital television (DTV) service. We request information on the
number of households that are able to receive DTV/HDTV programming
either over the air or from an MVPD. We seek current data and
projections for the number of households that rely on over-the-air
reception of broadcast television that have DTV sets, including the
number that have built-in or separate DTV tuner capability. What
reception difficulties, if any, do viewers that are within the service
areas of DTV stations experience, and have there been any advances to
address reception performance? Are there unique reception issues that
differentiate DTV service from analog service in terms of either better
or worse over-the-air reception?
39. We request information regarding the MVPD carriage of DTV
programming, in either standard definition (SD) or high definition (HD)
formats, and plans to increase the amount of DTV programming carried.
How many MVPD subscribers are served by systems that carry DTV
programming, and how many households are subscribing to such services
when offered as separate packages? We also request comment on carriage
agreements between MVPDs and broadcasters. Specifically, how many
noncommercial educational broadcast stations are being carried, and
under what terms?
40. We seek information on how MVPDs package and price broadcast
and non-broadcast DTV programming. What impact will the digital
transition have on competition if cable has the capacity to provide
broadcast HD programming, but DBS operators do not?
41. We request information on the amount and type of DTV
programming offered by broadcasters. To what extent are they using
their DTV spectrum for SDTV, HDTV, or multicasting? To what extent are
stations locally producing DTV or HDTV programming? To what extent are
stations offered network HDTV programming that they are either not
equipped to pass through, or for other reasons do not pass through? How
are noncommercial educational broadcasters, including PBS affiliates,
using the DTV spectrum? Are there differences in the ways that
commercial and noncommercial broadcasters are using their DTV spectrum?
42. Have the Commission's programs to educate consumers about the
transition to digital television resulted in greater consumer
familiarity with DTV in general and HDTV specifically? We seek data
regarding consumers' awareness of the DTV transition, including
consumer survey results. We
[[Page 66951]]
seek information on the consumer education efforts of government,
retailers, broadcasters, video programmers and producers, and others.
How successful are these consumer education efforts?
43. We seek information on the types of services and content that
broadcasters are transmitting using multicasting. We seek information
on whether multicasting is limited to large markets, or if stations in
small- and medium-sized markets are multicasting. How much multicast
programming is locally produced or locally focused? To what extent is
the provision of multicast service dependent upon its carriage by cable
and other MVPD operators? In how many markets are cable operators and
other MVPDs carrying broadcasters' multicast programming, and which
markets are they?
44. DTV also allows broadcasters to use part of their digital
bandwidth for subscription multichannel video programming services and
datacasting. How many TV households subscribe to these services, what
markets have access to these services, and what is their expected
growth over the next several years? We further request information on
how broadcasters are using datacasting to deliver services and content
to consumers.
45. We seek updated information on the adoption of the equipment
needed to receive digital programming, either over the air or from an
MVPD, such as the total number of DTV displays, including HD-ready and
enhanced definition (ED)-ready monitors, and set-top, over-the-air
tuners, that have been shipped to retailers or sold to consumers. How
many DBS receivers contain over-the-air DTV reception capabilities? How
many cable set-top boxes include this capability? We also seek
information on the development and availability of digital-to-analog
converters that will allow digital TV broadcasts to be viewed on analog
TV sets. We seek an update on the development of a high-quality, low-
cost digital-to-analog converter box for terrestrial DTV reception.
Wireless Cable Systems
46. Wireless cable operators offer limited competition to incumbent
cable operators. Many licensees of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS)
and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) used by wireless cable
operators to provide video service have chosen to focus on the delivery
of non-video broadband services, such as high-speed Internet service.
Have factors such as concerns regarding access to programming,
bandwidth considerations, local regulatory considerations, and bundled
service offerings, led wireless cable operators to move away from video
service?
Private Cable Operators
47. We request information on the types of services offered by
private cable operators (PCOs), also known as satellite master antenna
television (SMATV) operators. We seek information on the identification
of PCO companies, the geographic areas they serve, the programming
packages offered, and the prices of such packages compared to those of
incumbent cable operators. We seek comment on whether PCOs are using
CARS licenses to provide additional competition to incumbent cable
operators.
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers
48. We request information on the availability and deployment of
mobile television services, including information on programming
agreements between video programming networks and other content
providers and cell phone companies. How many mobile telephone users
have access to and subscribe to video programming services? What
equipment is required to receive these services, and what is the cost
of equipment and service? In which markets are these services
available? We are interested in any studies or surveys that explore the
use of mobile video services as a complement to, or a substitute for,
traditional video services. Do current trends suggest that we should
consider mobile telephone providers that offer video programming to be
MVPDs?
49. We also seek information on video distribution from other
wireless devices, including iPODs and personal digital assistants
(PDAs), used to receive such programming. We seek information on the
manner in which video content is delivered to these devices (e.g.,
broadcast vs. Internet downloading). We seek information on how
programmers are re-purposing traditional video programming for viewing
on these devices, and if programmers are creating content specifically
for these new devices.
Internet Video
50. We seek updated information on the types of video services
offered over the Internet in both real time and downloadable format. We
request comment on its quality relative to traditional video program
distribution. We seek projections of whether Internet video will become
a viable competitor in the market for the delivery of video programming
and, if so, when such competition will emerge. We also seek comment on
companies that provide content distribution via the Internet for
independent content producers.
Home Video Sales and Rentals
51. We seek information regarding the home video sales and rental
market, including data on the number or percentage of households with
videocassette recorders (VHS) and digital versatile disc (DVD) players.
We request information on the amount of programming available in DVD
and VHS formats, for sale and rental, the cost of rentals, and how this
compares with the cost of pay-per-view, video-on-demand, or near video-
on-demand programming offered by MVPDs. We also seek information on
Internet-based video sales and rental services and the effect, if any,
they have on video distributors' service offerings, such as VOD and
pay-per-view.
Advanced Services
52. We seek information on the advanced services offered by all
MVPDs (e.g., VOD, digital video recorders (DVRs), high-speed Internet
access, telephony, and HDTV). We request subscribership statistics;
cost data; and required equipment for each type of service offered. We
request information on how MVPDs bundle these services and how this
affects competition.
53. For example, we seek information on the programming that is
available through video-on-demand. Is there programming that is
produced especially for VOD? How much VOD content is local? What amount
of VOD content is exclusive to any one video distributor?
54. We seek information on DVR services provided by MVPDs. What
percentage of subscribers has access to operator-supplied DVRs, and how
many subscribe to the service? How many use a DVR not supplied by an
MVPD? We seek information on the characteristics of the DVRs offered
(e.g., single or dual tuner, storage capacity). Do DBS providers still
use DVRs to approximate VOD service? What percentage of the DVR set-top
boxes are leased as opposed to purchased? Do MVPDs plan to offer a
network-based or centralized DVR-like service?
55. In addition, we seek information on the percentage of MVPD
Internet access service subscribers that also are video subscribers.
How is the service priced, and do video subscribers receive discounts?
What is the status of DBS high-speed Internet access (e.g., telephone
return path, two-way satellite delivered). Are MVPDs giving
[[Page 66952]]
subscribers a choice of Internet service providers? Has any MVPD
blocked access to certain kinds of Internet content or applications?
56. Finally, we seek information on the latest developments
regarding Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony. Is it marketed
as part of a bundle of services? Are discounts offered to video
subscribers? To what extent are MVPDs phasing out switched circuit
telephony?
Technical Issues
57. Technological developments have important consequences for the
state of video competition. We seek comment and data on a range of
developments related to consumer equipment, navigation devices, the
Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP), PacketCable, CableCARDs,
advanced compression techniques, technical standards, and home
networking.
58. We seek comment on the availability and compatibility of
customer premises equipment used to provide video and non-video
services. How many households currently have analog television sets
that are connected to a set-top box for the provision of various MVPD
services. How many of these set-top boxes only provide analog services
and how many provide different types of digital service, (i.e., decode
and display HD signals). How many of these MVPD set-top boxes also
contain cable modems, IP telephony interfaces, DVR capabilities, or
home networking capabilities, and how are these services priced? How
many set-top boxes are capable of providing video programming on an a
la carte basis and is any MVPD offering this service?
59. We also seek information on the retail availability of
navigation devices to consumers. How many such devices have been sold?
What are the obstacles to equipment manufacturers and others for
obtaining approval to attach devices to MVPD systems? How does
equipment design, function, and/or availability affect consumer choice
and competition between firms in the video programming market? We
request information on the development and deployment of electronic
programming guides (EPGs), including the number and type of EPGs that
video programming distributors offer or plan to offer, and the
technologies used to distribute EPGs. We ask commenters to provide
information on partnerships between video providers and developers of
EPGs, the extent MVPD-affiliated EPGs are available to competitors, and
whether subscribers have access to EPGs that are unaffiliated with
their video provider? How many products are currently available with
plug-and-play functionality, or are soon to be available?
60. We seek updated information on developments CableLabs' OCAP
middleware solution. Which manufacturers are incorporating OCAP into
their products? How many OCAP compliant products have been deployed,
and how many are in use today? What types of applications exist for
OCAP? Do smaller cable systems have plans to deploy these devices and,
if so, how will they do it? We seek information on the results of OCAP
device trials by MSOs in select markets, and whether they are expected
to lead to commercial implementations and, if so, when. We request
information on industry developments to facilitate bi-directional
services and interactive television (ITV) applications and services. We
also request updated information on the state of the agreement between
the Consumer Electronics Association and the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association to incorporate support for OCAP in
interactive Digital Cable Ready (iDCR) devices, and whether any
technical issues remain.
61. We solicit updated information on PacketCable, the
specification standard for the delivery of advanced real-time
multimedia services over two-way plant. We also seek updated
information CableCARDs, including the number operators have placed in
service: the manner in which subscribers must obtain a CableCARD:
whether operators require professional installation of the card: and
any monthly subscription charges or one-time fees associated with
installing or authorizing the CableCARD. Have MVPDs or consumers
encountered problems with CableCARDs and how have they been resolved?
We seek information on the status of operators to develop multi-stream
and two-way CableCARDs, and the impact this development will likely
have on the competitive marketplace for digital cable-ready receivers,
including DVRs.
62. We request updated information on the development and
deployment of any downloadable conditional access systems. We seek
comment on what content protection technologies are now available, how
they work, and what legal or marketplace impediments have affected the
roll-out of such tools. We seek comment on what security measures are
in use and the effect of the choice of such security measures on
competition. We also invite comment on how the Commission can encourage
the development of digital rights management technology that will
promote consumer uses of, and access to, high value digital content.
63. We request updates on MVPDs' implementation of advanced video
compression technologies (codecs). We are particularly interested in
examples of how the implementation of advanced codecs has increased
efficiency or created specific benefits flowing to subscribers. In
addition, we seek information on industry developments with respect to
the creation of specifications and standards to support the wider
introduction of home networks by MVPDs.
64. We seek information on the effect that technical rules and
standards have on the market for video programming services. Are there
specific actions that the Commission may take to foster greater
competition among video service providers? Do current technical rules
and standards (such as the ``plug-and-play'' standards), provide a
level playing field among competitors in the video delivery
marketplace?
Foreign Markets
65. We seek information or case studies that address the status of
competition in foreign markets for the delivery of video programming
because developments in other countries can lend insight into the
nature of competition in the United States. Specifically, we seek
information regarding the differences between the U.S. market and
foreign markets, including differences in pricing; packaging (e.g., a
la carte offerings); deployment of VoIP; the DTV transition; and
competition among MVPDs or over-the-air service. We seek input from
distributors operating both in the United States and abroad. How do
different regulatory approaches affect their business models?
Procedural Matters
66. Authority. This NOI is issued pursuant to authority contained
in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g).
67. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR
1.1204(b)(1).
68. Comment Information. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
[[Page 66953]]
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19473 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P