**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CSR-7112-Z                   |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Armstrong Utilities, Inc.        | ** | CSR-7110-Z                   |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC  | *  | CSR-7117-Z                   |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Bresnan Communications, LLC      | ** | CSR-7144-Z                   |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Cable & Communications           | *  | CSR-7145-Z                   |
| Corporation                      | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** | CSR-7115-Z                   |
| and Mid-Rivers Telephone         |    |                              |
| Cooperative, Inc.                | *  | CSR-7200-Z                   |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Cequel Communications, LLC,      | ** | CSR-7109-Z                   |
| d/b/a Suddenlink Communications  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | CSR-7111-Z                   |
| Knology, Inc.                    | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** | CSR-7114-Z                   |
| NPG Cable, Inc.                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | CS Docket No. 97-80          |
| Orange Broadband Operating       | *) |                              |
| Company, LLC and Carolina        | ** |                              |
| Broadband, LLC                   |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| The World Company d/b/a          | *) |                              |
| Sunflower Broadband              | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Request for Waiver of Section    | *  |                              |
| 76.1204(a)(1) of the             | *) |                              |
| Commission's Rules               | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Implementation of Section 304 of | *  |                              |
| the Telecommunications Act of    | *) |                              |
| 1996                             | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Commercial Availability of       | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Navigation Devices               | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: June 29, 2007 Released: June 29, 2007**

By the Chief, Media Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  The above-captioned multichannel video programming distributors
    ("Petitioners") have filed with the Chief of the Media Bureau
    requests for waiver (the "Waiver Requests") of the ban on integrated
    set-top boxes set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's
    rules[^1] to allow them to continue to place into service certain
    integrated digital cable set-top boxes (the "Subject Boxes") after
    July 1, 2007. For the reasons stated below, we deny Petitioners'
    Waiver Requests, but grant Petitioners leave to amend their
    requests.

# BACKGROUND

**A. Section 629 of the Act**

2.  Section 629(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    "Act"), requires the Commission to:

> adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers
> of multichannel video programming and other services offered over
> multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes,
> interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by
> consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services
> offered over multichannel video programming systems, from
> manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any
> multichannel video programming distributor.[^2]

Through Section 629, Congress intended to ensure that consumers have the
opportunity to purchase navigation devices from sources other than their
multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD").[^3] Congress
characterized the transition to competition in navigation devices as an
important goal, stating that "\[c\]ompetition in the manufacturing and
distribution of consumer devices has always led to innovation, lower
prices and higher quality."[^4] At the same time, Congress recognized
that MVPDs have "a valid interest, which the Commission should continue
to protect, in system or signal security and in preventing theft of
service."[^5] Similarly, Congress also sought to avoid Commission
actions "which could have the effect of freezing or chilling the
development of new technologies and services."[^6] Under Section 629(c),
therefore, the Commission may grant a waiver of its regulations
implementing Section 629(a) when doing so is necessary to assist the
development or introduction of new or improved services.[^7]

3.  To carry out the directives of Section 629, the Commission in 1998
    required MVPDs to make available by July 1, 2000 a security element
    separate from the basic navigation device (the "host device").[^8]
    The integration ban was designed to enable unaffiliated
    manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors to commercially market
    host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain control over their
    system security. MVPDs were permitted to continue providing
    equipment with integrated security until January 1, 2005, so long as
    modular security components, known as point-of-deployment modules
    ("PODs"),[^9] were also made available for use with host devices
    obtained through retail outlets. In April 2003, in response to a
    request from cable operators, the Commission extended the effective
    date of the integration ban until July 1, 2006.[^10] Then, in 2005,
    again at the urging of cable operators,[^11] the Commission further
    extended that date until July 1, 2007.[^12] In that decision, the
    Commission stated that it would "entertain certain requests for
    waiver of the prohibition on integrated devices for limited
    capability integrated digital cable boxes."[^13]

4.  The Media Bureau has acted upon six requests for waiver of Section
    76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, three on January 10,
    2007,[^14] and three on May 4, 2007.[^15] The Bureau found that
    waiver was not warranted for any of the parties pursuant to Section
    629(c) because none of the parties had demonstrated that waiver was
    necessary to assist in the development or introduction of a new or
    improved service.[^16] The Bureau also found that devices with
    two-way functionality did not meet the waiver policy established by
    the Commission in the *2005 Deferral Order* for low-cost,
    limited-capability set-top boxes.[^17] The Bureau found good cause,
    however, to conditionally grant Bend Cable Communications d/b/a
    BendBroadband ("BendBroadband") a waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of
    the Commission's rules.[^18]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **The Waiver Requests and Comments**

### Armstrong Utilities, Inc.

5.  Pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended,[^19] and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's
    rules,[^20] Armstrong Utilities, Inc. ("Armstrong") seeks waiver of
    the integration ban to allow it to continue to place into service
    new integrated digital cable set-top boxes after July 1, 2007.[^21]
    Armstrong seeks relief very similar to what the National Cable and
    Telecommunications Association seeks in its waiver request:[^22]
    Armstrong seeks waiver of the integration ban for the DCT-700 until
    the earlier of December 31, 2009 or the availability of downloadable
    security.[^23]

6.  Armstrong asserts that the Waiver Request is limited in scope to the
    type of device the Commission identified in the *2005 Deferral
    Order* (*i.e.*, a low-cost, limited-capability set-top box) and that
    grant of the Waiver Request would not undermine the goal of a
    competitive navigation device market.[^24] Armstrong claims that
    grant of the Waiver Request is critical because low-end digital
    set-top boxes like the DCT-700 could allow it to transition to an
    all-digital network by the end of 2009.[^25] According to Armstrong,
    absent a waiver, Armstrong will have no alternative but to switch to
    a more expensive set-top box model and to price its digital services
    out of the reach of many of its customers.[^26] Armstrong argues
    that grant of the Waiver Request would serve the public interest by
    rapidly accelerating the digital transition in low-density and rural
    markets.[^27]

7.  Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.[^28]
    The American Cable Association ("ACA") and Motorola fully support a
    waiver in this circumstance.[^29] ACA echoes Armstrong's assertion
    that "enforcing the integration ban against \[Armstrong\] will raise
    the price of digital services beyond the reach of Armstrong's
    smaller-market and lower-income subscribers."[^30]

8.  Motorola states that using the DCH-100, Motorola's lowest-cost
    nonintegrated set-top box, will cost cable operators "substantially
    more than the DCT-700, even in higher volumes."[^31] According to
    Motorola, the additional cost will be borne by consumers, which
    threatens to "negatively affect consumer uptake of digital services"
    and "risk the loss of price-sensitive customers to competitors,
    including DBS companies."[^32]

9.  CEA states in an ex parte that it is sympathetic to Armstrong's
    outlook and its objectives but believes that grant of the Waiver
    Request would undermine the objective of Congress "to create, at
    long last, a competitive market for cable navigation devices."[^33]
    CEA also urges the Commission not to exclude refurbished integrated
    set-top boxes from the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of
    the Commission's rules because such exclusion would "ensure that
    devices with separable security will remain a poorly supported niche
    product for many years to come, and further reduce incentives to
    deploy a truly open and non-integrated downloadable security
    technology in the near future."[^34]

### Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC

10. Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC ("Atlantic Broadband") has filed a
    request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended,[^35] and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the
    Commission's rules,[^36] for waiver of the prohibition set forth in
    Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules on offering
    navigation devices that perform both conditional access and other
    functions with respect to the STBs.[^37] Atlantic Broadband asserts
    that its Waiver Request is limited in scope to the type of device
    the Commission identified in the *2005 Deferral Order* (*i.e.*, a
    low-cost, limited-capability set-top box) and that grant of its
    Waiver Request would not undermine the goal of a competitive
    navigation device market.[^38] Atlantic Broadband claims that grant
    of its Waiver Request is critical because low-end digital set-top
    boxes like the STBs will accelerate Atlantic Broadband's move to an
    all-digital network.[^39] According to Atlantic Broadband, without
    the requested waivers, its digital penetration will be slowed or
    halted, and the company will be unable to transition to all-digital
    services until downloadable security and the OpenCable Application
    Platform ("OCAP") become available.[^40] Finally, Atlantic Broadband
    argues that if the Commission is for some reason reluctant to grant
    an across-the-board waiver for the STBs, it could alternatively
    grant limited waivers pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's
    rules.[^41] Atlantic Broadband suggests that these limited waivers
    would be applicable to small and medium-sized operators only, since
    these operators serve the price-sensitive low-density and rural
    areas that will be hit hardest by the application of the integration
    ban.[^42] Atlantic Broadband also requests that the Commission
    clarify that refurbished integrated boxes acquired on the used
    equipment market are not "new" navigation devices and are therefore
    not subject to the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules.[^43]

11. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.[^44]
    ACA and Motorola fully support a waiver in this circumstance.[^45]
    ACA echoes Atlantic Broadband's assertion that because of the high
    cost of nonintegrated, limited feature set-top boxes, Atlantic
    Broadband "has no economic justification for moving to an
    all-digital network without a waiver of the integration ban."[^46]
    Motorola states that using the DCH-100, Motorola's lowest-cost
    nonintegrated set-top box, will cost cable operators "substantially
    more than the DCT-700, even in higher volumes."[^47] According to
    Motorola, the additional cost will be borne by consumers, which
    threatens to "negatively affect consumer uptake of digital services"
    and "risk the loss of price-sensitive customers to competitors,
    including DBS companies."[^48]

12. In an ex parte, CEA states that it is sympathetic to Atlantic
    Broadband's outlook and its objectives but believes that grant of
    the Waiver Request would undermine the objective of Congress "to
    create, at long last, a competitive market for cable navigation
    devices."[^49] CEA also asserts that granting the Waiver Request for
    advanced functionality devices on the basis of the *2005 Deferral
    Order* would "stretch the definition of a low-cost, limited
    functionality device beyond any meaningful limit."[^50] CEA also
    urges the Commission not to exclude refurbished integrated set-top
    boxes from the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules because such exclusion would "ensure that devices
    with separable security will remain a poorly supported niche product
    for many years to come, and further reduce incentives to deploy a
    truly open and non-integrated downloadable security technology in
    the near future."[^51]

### Bresnan Communications, LLC

13. Pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended,[^52] and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's
    rules,[^53] Bresnan Communications, LLC ("Bresnan") seeks a limited
    waiver of the integration ban set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of
    the Commission's rules.[^54] Specifically, Bresnan seeks a waiver of
    the integration ban until cable operators' deployment of
    downloadable security or December 31, 2009, whichever is earlier.
    Bresnan asserts that the waiver is especially critical for operators
    serving small and rural markets "where the cost impact of a
    CableCARD mandate would be far more severe and where the potential
    incremental benefit of applying the ban before downloadable security
    would be negligible."[^55] Bresnan claims that denial of the Waiver
    Request would force it to reallocate expenditures from investment in
    upgrading its networks to offer digital services to higher-cost
    nonintegrated set-top box devices, a move it considers unnecessary
    in light of the near-term availability of a much cheaper
    downloadable security alternative.[^56] Bresnan further argues that
    such a reallocation of resources would delay the delivery of
    wireless broadband and other new and improved services to small-town
    markets.[^57] Additionally, Bresnan notes that failure to grant a
    waiver, while DBS operators are not subject to the integration ban,
    violates the Commission's policy of competitive and technological
    neutrality.[^58] Finally, Bresnan claims that the incremental
    benefit of imposing the ban on small operators would be minimal,
    since "the relative trickle of CableCARDs that would be used by
    small operators such as Bresnan would not have any material effect
    on nationwide volumes or pricing."[^59]

14. ACA and Motorola support Bresnan's waiver request, while CEA urges
    denial.[^60] ACA states that absent a waiver Bresnan would be unable
    to offer digital services to its subscribers in higher-cost, lower
    income areas or to deploy wireless broadband to its rural
    subscribers."[^61] ACA also states that a waiver is "necessary to
    avoid a regulatory distortion favoring DBS operators over their much
    smaller competitors -- cable operators serving smaller and rural
    markets."[^62] Motorola supports a waiver because "adding cableCARD
    capabilities significantly increases the cost of the set-top box and
    that imposing these costs makes no sense when more cost-effective
    technologically-superior downloadable security solutions are being
    diligently pursued by the cable industry."[^63]

15. CEA urges the Commission to deny the waiver because Bresnan's
    request is not limited to any particular integrated device but for
    the specific purpose of offering "advanced" features generally.[^64]
    CEA argues that a blanket waiver such as Bresnan seeks is
    inappropriate because it would undermine Congress's intent to
    promote effective competition in navigation devices with advanced
    features.[^65] Finally, CEA refutes Bresnan's assertion that
    downloadable security is imminent and argues that this should not
    serve as a basis for granting a waiver.[^66]

### Cable & Communications Corporation and Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

16. Cable & Communications Corporation and its parent, Mid-Rivers
    Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (collectively, "C&CC") have filed a
    request pursuant to Sections 629(a) and 629(c) of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended,[^67] and Sections 1.3 76.7 and 76.1207 of
    the Commission's rules,[^68] for an eighteen month waiver of the
    prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's
    rules on offering navigation devices that perform both conditional
    access and other functions with respect to the following integrated
    Motorola set-top boxes: DSR 470, DCT 6412/6416, DCT 2000, and DCT
    2500.[^69]

17. C&CC claims that grant of the Waiver Request is critical given the
    rural, economically disadvantaged area it serves. C&CC asserts that
    waiver will "allow it to conserve the capital necessary to complete
    the digital conversion of its system, and at the same time position
    itself to take advantage of the more economical solutions which may
    arise to effect the separation of set-top box security and
    navigation functions."[^70] C&CC claims that non-integrated
    navigation devices currently on the market are more expensive than
    integrated devices and that its customers cannot afford the
    higher-priced alternative. C&CC argues that the public policy
    advanced by the integration ban is not served by applying the ban to
    C&CC's market.[^71]

18. Two parties filed comments in response to C&CC's Waiver Request.
    Motorola strongly supports grant of the request, echoing C&CC's
    argument that denial of the Waiver Request will slow C&CC's digital
    transition and impose greater costs on both C&CC and its
    subscribers.[^72] CEA opposes waiver and argues that further delay
    of the implementation of the integration ban will have no effect
    other than to "continue to foreclose a local market for
    \[non-integrated navigation devices\]," thereby subjecting C&CC's
    customers to being "locked into leasing devices from the
    operator\[\], while customers of larger operators reap the benefits
    of device innovation and competition, as fostered by separable
    security and common reliance."[^73] In its reply, C&CC reiterates
    its contention that "\[g\]rant of this limited waiver will enable
    C&CC to direct its resources toward digital transition, while
    maintaining the capability of providing economic cable service in a
    depressed community."[^74]

### Cequel Communications, LLC, d/b/a Suddenlink Communications

19. Cequel Communications, LLC, d/b/a Suddenlink Communications
    ("Suddenlink") seeks waiver of the integration ban to allow it to
    continue to place into service the following set-top box models: the
    Motorola DCT-700 and DCT-2500e; Scientific Atlanta E1840, E940, and
    E3200; and the Pace "Chicago" DC501p and "Indiana" DC511p
    (collectively, "Suddenlink Boxes").[^75] Suddenlink asserts that
    denial of the Waiver Request would delay the delivery of digital
    services to hundreds of thousands of consumers, especially in
    smaller and rural markets.[^76] Suddenlink argues that in order to
    make the investments necessary to bring digital services to smaller
    and rural markets, it cannot afford to have significant operational
    resources bled by a requirement to use more expensive set-top boxes,
    especially when the more expensive devices might be superseded
    shortly thereafter by the arrival of cheaper downloadable security
    solutions.[^77]

20. Suddenlink claims that grant of the Waiver Request is critical
    because low-end digital set-top boxes like the Suddenlink Boxes are
    essential to Suddenlink's digital transition.[^78] According to
    Suddenlink, the Suddenlink Boxes have such limited functionality
    that they attract the most price-sensitive consumers who would
    otherwise opt for direct broadcast satellite services or no digital
    services at all.[^79]

21. Suddenlink also asserts that none of its existing set-top suppliers
    has offered any binding commitments to deliver any type of CableCARD
    devices to Suddenlink in time for a July 2007 deployment.[^80]
    Suddenlink argues that the application of the integrated device ban
    in a manner that would effectively prohibit Suddenlink from offering
    any low-cost navigation devices violates the Section 629(a)
    restriction against regulations that prohibit multichannel video
    programming distributors from also offering navigation devices.[^81]
    Finally, Suddenlink suggests that at a minimum, the Waiver Request
    should be granted until either the end of 2009 or until downloadable
    security can be deployed, to spare consumers the cost of
    implementing the integration ban through a soon-to-be antiquated
    CableCARD solution in favor of a cheaper and technologically
    advanced downloadable security solution.[^82]

22. One party filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.[^83]
    Motorola fully supports a waiver in this circumstance.[^84] Motorola
    states that using the DCH-100, Motorola's lowest-cost nonintegrated
    set-top box, will cost cable operators "substantially more than the
    DCT-700, even in higher volumes."[^85] According to Motorola, the
    additional cost will be borne by consumers, which threatens to
    "negatively affect consumer uptake of digital services" and "risk
    the loss of price-sensitive customers to competitors, including DBS
    companies."[^86]

23. In an ex parte, CEA states that it is sympathetic to Suddenlink's
    outlook and its objectives but believes that grant of the Waiver
    Request would undermine the objective of Congress "to create, at
    long last, a competitive market for cable navigation devices."[^87]
    In reply,[^88] Suddenlink argues that CEA failed to address many
    things, including the specific consumer benefits that would come
    with a waiver, the lack of consumer benefits that would come with
    application of the integration ban, and Suddenlink's showing that
    application of the integration ban in a manner that would eliminate
    its ability to offer low-cost devices would violate Congress'
    restriction against "regulations \[that\] prohibit any \[MVPD\] from
    also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment,
    and other equipment used by consumers to access" MVPD programming to
    consumers.[^89]

### Knology, Inc.

24. Knology, Inc. ("Knology") seeks waiver of the integration ban to
    allow it to continue to place into service integrated digital cable
    set-top boxes after July 1, 2007.[^90] Knology states that it is
    placing orders for compliant set-top boxes, but doesn't believe that
    the boxes will be delivered in time to meet the July 1
    deadline.[^91] Therefore Knology is requesting a waiver so that it
    may continue to deploy non-compliant boxes until they have received
    a sufficient supply of compliant boxes to commence deployment.[^92]
    As justification for its waiver, Knology cites the *BendBroadband
    Order* in which we stated that we would allow a deferral of
    enforcement as long the company can demonstrate that it has placed
    an order for compliant set-top boxes, but that the boxes won't be
    ready in time for compliance with the July 1 deadline.[^93]

25. In addition, Knology is requesting a waiver of the integration ban
    once its supply of these ordered compliant boxes has run out,[^94]
    at which point it would like to continue to deploy non-compliant
    boxes pending delivery of a set-top box that includes a downloadable
    security solution.[^95] In support of this, Knology argues that the
    Commission has previously granted competitive providers exemptions
    to the integration ban, and that a waiver in this case would serve
    to promote competition.[^96] Knology also asserts that the CableCARD
    solution is "fast becoming obsolete, in favor of lower cost, higher
    functionality \[set-top boxes\] that make use of a downloadable
    security solution."[^97] As such, over the long term Knology would
    like to completely transition to downloadable security devices.[^98]
    Knology argues that "\[f\]orcing it to continue to purchase
    Cablecard devices into the future, when a downloadable security box
    may be available as soon as 2009, is forcing it to make unnecessary
    duplicative investment, which as a competitive operator, it cannot
    recoup, forcing it to divert funds from investment in its plant and
    services."[^99]

26. CEA was the only party to file a comment in response to the Waiver
    Request. CEA believes that a grant of the waiver is not justified
    because it doesn't feel that Knology's status as an overbuilder
    provides sufficient grounds for a waiver.[^100] Further, in terms of
    Knology's request for a waiver before they are able to purchase a
    downloadable security solution, CEA states that "\[n\]o such system,
    from CableLabs or anyone else, is sufficiently on the horizon and
    open to public comment to be a definitive basis of FCC action in a
    public-comment proceeding."[^101] CEA goes on to state that even if
    such a system were judged to be compliant, "most or all competitive
    devices at that time will still be reliant on CableCARDs."[^102]

### NPG Cable, Inc.

27. NPG Cable, Inc. ("NPG Cable") has filed a request pursuant to
    Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^103]
    and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules,[^104] for
    waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules on offering navigation devices that perform both
    conditional access and other functions with respect to the Motorola
    DCT-700 set-top box.[^105]

28. NPG Cable asserts that its Waiver Request is limited in scope to the
    type of device the Commission identified in the *2005 Deferral
    Order* (*i.e.*, a low-cost, limited-capability set-top box) and that
    grant of the Waiver Request would not undermine the goal of a
    competitive navigation device market.[^106] NPG Cable claims that
    grant of the Waiver Request is critical because low-end digital
    set-top boxes like the DCT-700 will accelerate NPG Cable's digital
    transition.[^107] According to NPG Cable, the DCT-700 is so basic
    and limited in its functionality that it attracts the most
    price-sensitive consumers who would otherwise opt for no digital
    services at all were this model unavailable.[^108]

29. Finally, NPG Cable argues that if the Commission is for some reason
    reluctant to grant a broad waiver for the DCT-700, it could
    alternatively grant a limited waiver pursuant to Section 1.3 of the
    Commission's rules.[^109] NPG Cable suggests that this limited
    waiver would be applicable to small and medium-sized operators only,
    since these operators serve the price-sensitive low-density and
    rural areas that will be hit hardest by the application of the
    integration ban.[^110] NPG Cable also requests that the Commission
    clarify that refurbished integrated boxes acquired on the used
    equipment market are not "new" navigation devices and are therefore
    not subject to the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules.[^111]

30. Three parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request. ACA
    and Motorola fully support a waiver in this circumstance.[^112] ACA
    echoes NPG Cable's assertion that it suffers from a "very low
    digital penetration rate" as a result of its "significant percentage
    of low-income subscribers."[^113] ACA also supports NPG Cable's
    assertion that denial of the Waiver Request "will impede the
    company's already-slow digital transition."[^114]

31. Motorola states that using the DCH-100, Motorola's lowest-cost
    nonintegrated set-top box, will cost cable operators "substantially
    more than the DCT-700, even in higher volumes."[^115] According to
    Motorola, the additional cost will be borne by consumers, which
    threatens to "negatively affect consumer uptake of digital services"
    and "risk the loss of price-sensitive customers to competitors,
    including DBS companies."[^116]

32. CEA states that it is sympathetic to NPG Cable's outlook and its
    objectives but believes that grant of the Waiver Request would
    undermine the objective of Congress "to create, at long last, a
    competitive market for cable navigation devices."[^117] CEA also
    urges the Commission not to exclude refurbished integrated set-top
    boxes from the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules because such exclusion would "ensure that devices
    with separable security will remain a poorly supported niche product
    for many years to come, and further reduce incentives to deploy a
    truly open and non-integrated downloadable security technology in
    the near future."[^118]

### Orange Broadband Operating Company, LLC and Carolina Broadband, LLC

33. Orange Broadband Operating Company, LLC and Carolina Broadband, LLC
    (collectively, "Orange Broadband") have filed a request pursuant to
    Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^119]
    and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules,[^120] for
    waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules on offering navigation devices that perform both
    conditional access and other functions.[^121] Orange Broadband
    asserts that its Waiver Request is limited in scope to the type of
    device the Commission identified in the *2005 Deferral Order*
    (*i.e.*, a low-cost, limited-capability set-top box) and that grant
    of its Waiver Request would not undermine the goal of a competitive
    navigation device market.[^122] Orange Broadband claims that grant
    of the Waiver Request is critical because low-end digital set-top
    boxes will accelerate Orange Broadband's move to an all-digital
    network.[^123] Finally, Orange Broadband argues that if the
    Commission is for some reason reluctant to grant an across-the-board
    waiver for the STBs, it could alternatively grant limited waivers
    pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules.[^124] Orange
    Broadband suggests that these limited waivers would be applicable to
    small and medium-sized operators only, since these operators serve
    the price-sensitive low-density and rural areas that will be hit
    hardest by the application of the integration ban.[^125] Orange
    Broadband also requests that the Commission clarify that refurbished
    integrated boxes acquired on the used equipment market are not "new"
    navigation devices and are therefore not subject to the integration
    ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules.[^126]

34. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.[^127]
    ACA and Motorola fully support a waiver in this circumstance.[^128]
    ACA echoes Orange Broadband's assertion that "If required to deploy
    non-integrated boxes, Orange Broadband does not believe that it will
    be able to transition to an all-digital network."[^129] Motorola
    states that using the DCH-100, Motorola's lowest-cost nonintegrated
    set-top box, will cost cable operators "substantially more than the
    DCT-700, even in higher volumes."[^130] According to Motorola, the
    additional cost will be borne by consumers, which threatens to
    "negatively affect consumer uptake of digital services" and "risk
    the loss of price-sensitive customers to competitors, including DBS
    companies."[^131]

35. In an ex parte, CEA states that it is sympathetic to Orange
    Broadband's outlook and its objectives but believes that grant of
    the Waiver Request would undermine the objective of Congress "to
    create, at long last, a competitive market for cable navigation
    devices."[^132] CEA also asserts that granting the Waiver Request
    for advanced functionality devices on the basis of the *2005
    Deferral Order* would "stretch the definition of a low-cost, limited
    functionality device beyond any meaningful limit."[^133] CEA also
    urges the Commission not to exclude refurbished integrated set-top
    boxes from the integration ban in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules because such exclusion would "ensure that devices
    with separable security will remain a poorly supported niche product
    for many years to come, and further reduce incentives to deploy a
    truly open and non-integrated downloadable security technology in
    the near future."[^134]

### The World Company d/b/a Sunflower Broadband

36. The World Company d/b/a Sunflower Broadband ("Sunflower Broadband")
    filed its original request for waiver (the "Original Waiver
    Request") on November 20, 2006. On February 22, 2007, Sunflower
    Broadband filed a supplement to its original request for waiver (the
    "Supplement to Original Waiver Request"). Collectively, we refer to
    these two submissions as the "Sunflower Waiver Request."

37. In the Original Waiver Request, Sunflower Broadband seeks waiver of
    the integration ban to allow it to continue to place into service
    new Motorola DCT-700 integrated digital cable set-top boxes after
    July 1, 2007. Sunflower Broadband argues that granting its request
    would benefit consumers and speed the digital transition in the
    smaller markets that it serves.[^135] Sunflower Broadband also
    asserts that the DCT-700 has allowed it to more than double its
    number of digital access subscribers.[^136] In addition, Sunflower
    Broadband argues that the DCT-700 is a "low-cost, limited
    capability" set-top box like that referred to in the *2005 Deferral
    Order*.[^137] It states that the DCT-700 cannot be used to output
    high-definition ("HD") signals, store recorded programs, tune
    multiple channels simultaneously, or access the Internet.[^138]
    Sunflower Broadband claims that the DCT-700 is so basic that "it
    does not even include an on/off switch, a clock or display."[^139]
    According to Sunflower Broadband, however, the DCT-700's features do
    include an electronic programming guide ("EPG"), video-on-demand
    ("VOD"), pay-per-view ("PPV") services, and other limited
    interactive television ("ITV") capabilities.[^140] In addition, it
    is our understanding that the DCT-700 supports the use of switched
    digital capabilities.

38. In the Original Waiver Request, Sunflower Broadband also requests
    that the Commission clarify that refurbished integrated boxes
    acquired on the used equipment market are not "new" navigation
    devices and are therefore not subject to the integration ban in
    Section 76.1204(a)(1).[^141] Sunflower Broadband argues that
    "\[t\]hese refurbished boxes have 'already been manufactured and
    deployed' and still have a 'useful life.'"[^142]

39. On February 22, 2007, Sunflower Broadband supplemented its Original
    Waiver Request in light of the Bureau's decision to conditionally
    grant a waiver to BendBroadband. In the Supplement to Original
    Waiver Request, Sunflower Broadband commits to "transition all its
    services to digital by December 31, 2008," if the Sunflower Waiver
    Request is granted, but "also plans to offer limited analog
    simulcast services consisting primarily of broadcast
    stations."[^143] Specifically, in light of the conditions set forth
    in the *BendBroadband Order*, Sunflower Broadband commits to (1)
    transition all its services to digital by December 31, 2008 (with
    limited analog simulcast services consisting primarily of broadcast
    stations); (2) notify its customers of its plans to transition to
    digital at least six months in advance of the transition; and (3)
    ensure that at least six months prior to migrating to digital
    services, "it has an inventory or has placed order for enough
    set-top boxes to ensure that each of its customers can continue to
    view its video programming on analog television sets."[^144]

40. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.[^145]
    ACA and Motorola strongly support the grant of a waiver in this
    circumstance.[^146] ACA argues that denying the requested waiver
    "will prevent the deployment of digital services to lower-income and
    rural and smaller-market consumers, and will halt the digital
    transition in many of \[Sunflower Broadand's\] markets."[^147] ACA
    posits that low-cost integrated set-top boxes are the key for
    operators in smaller and rural markets to transition to all-digital
    networks.[^148] Finally, ACA states that "consumers who gain access
    to digital services through the DCT-700 are not the target market
    for more expensive, non-integrated boxes."[^149] Motorola states
    that failure to grant the Waiver Request will eliminate low-cost,
    highly valued box options for cable operators and their
    customers.[^150]

41. In an ex parte, CEA opposes the Waiver Request, arguing that
    "further postponement of common reliance on separable security
    devices will undermine Congress's basic intention of creating, at
    long last, a true competitive market for navigation devices."[^151]
    CEA also asserts that a plan to reduce analog service cannot be
    considered a commitment to transition to an all-digital network, nor
    can it be considered a "new or improved" service.[^152]

# DISCUSSION

42. Petitioners make their requests pursuant to the general waiver
    provision of Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules,[^153] Section
    76.1207 of the Commission's rules, and Section 629(c) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996.[^154] In addition, because some
    Petitioners characterize some of the devices for which they seek
    waiver as "low-cost" devices, we will evaluate those requests under
    the waiver policy announced in the *2005 Deferral Order* as
    well.[^155] As discussed below, and consistent with the reasons
    previously set forth in the *January 10 Orders*, we find that the
    requests do not justify the grant of waivers under any of these
    standards. We therefore deny Petitioners' requests. Some Petitioners
    have also asked us to clarify that refurbished integrated set-top
    boxes purchased on the used equipment market are not "new"
    navigation devices and therefore may be deployed after the
    integration ban goes into effect.[^156] That request is also denied
    and discussed below.

## Section 629(c) of the Act

43. Section 629(c) states in relevant part that:

    \[t\]he Commission shall waive a regulation adopted under
    subsection (a) of this section for a limited time upon an
    appropriate showing . . . that such waiver is necessary to assist
    the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel
    video programming or other service offered over multichannel video
    programming systems, technology, or products.[^157]

As mentioned above, the principal goal of Section 629 of the Act is to
foster competition and consumer choice in the market for navigation
devices.

44. In the Waiver Requests, Petitioners argue that grant of the Waiver
    Request will allow them to upgrade their systems and would be a key
    step in the migration to an all-digital platform.[^158] However, as
    we stated in the *January 10 Orders* and the *May 4 Orders*, we do
    not find that such arguments generally justify a waiver under
    Section 629(c) of the Act.[^159]

45. Also, many of the Petitioners indicated in their individual Waiver
    Requests that they already offer digital services to a high
    percentage of their customers, or at least that that number has seen
    considerable improvements.[^160] Thus, these services already are
    utilized by many of Petitioners' cable subscribers and the waiver
    could hardly be "necessary" for the "development or introduction" of
    these services, as they already exist.

46. While it could be argued that a waiver under Section 629(c) would
    assist the development or introduction of virtually any service
    offered by an MVPD, we do not believe that Congress intended for us
    to interpret this narrowly tailored exception in such a lenient
    manner. Indeed, as we stated in the *BendBroadband Order*, such an
    interpretation would effectively negate any rules adopted pursuant
    to Section 629(a).[^161]

## The 2005 Deferral Order

### The Low-Cost, Limted-Capability Policy

47. Because most Petitioners characterize their Waiver Requests as
    requests for "low-cost" and "limited capability" devices,[^162] we
    evaluate the Waiver Requests under the waiver policy established in
    the Commission's *2005 Deferral Order*, as well.

48. We conclude that the Subject Boxes do not meet the
    limited-capability standard announced in the *2005 Deferral Order*.
    As we explained in the *January 10 Orders* and the *May 4
    Orders*,[^163] the Commission never contemplated that "limited
    capability integrated digital cable boxes" would include devices
    with two-way functionality. Rather, this category of boxes is
    confined to those devices whose functionality is limited to making
    digital cable signals available on analog sets.[^164] In explaining
    why it would entertain requests for waiver of the integration ban,
    the Commission emphasized that "it is critical to the DTV transition
    that consumers have access to inexpensive digital set-top boxes that
    will permit the viewing of digital programming on analog television
    sets both during and after the transition."[^165] In other words,
    the low-cost, limited-capability waiver standard that the Commission
    created in the *2005 Deferral Order* is, first and foremost, a
    narrow one.[^166]

49. Moreover, the Commission remained aware of the goal to develop a
    competitive marketplace for navigation devices. Accordingly, the
    Commission stated that waiver requests would not be warranted "for
    boxes that contain personal video recording ('PVR'),
    high-definition, broadband Internet access, multiple tuner, or
    *other similar advanced capabilities*."[^167] This list of
    capabilities was not intended to be exhaustive, as demonstrated by
    the inclusion of the phrase "other similar advanced
    capabilities."[^168] Throughout the navigation device and plug and
    play negotiations, all parties have understood the term "advanced"
    to include two-way capability. Indeed, an entire section of the
    Memorandum of Understanding signed by major cable and consumer
    electronics manufacturers -- which helped to shape the Commission's
    understanding of the topic during the unidirectional plug-and-play
    rulemaking proceeding[^169] -- deals exclusively with defining
    two-way products as "advanced."[^170]

50. In addition, in other pleadings before the Commission, the cable
    industry has advocated that these two-way, interactive features be
    classified as "advanced" capabilities. Specifically, the cable
    industry recommended that the Commission include in its regulations
    a requirement that non-interactive consumer electronics equipment
    contain a warning that "Certain advanced and interactive digital
    cable services such as video-on-demand, a cable operator's enhanced
    program guide and data-enhanced television services may require the
    use of a set-top box."[^171] The Subject Boxes contain precisely
    these advanced functions, as well as PPV capabilities. Accordingly,
    we conclude that the Subject Boxes do not constitute "limited
    capability" devices under the *2005 Deferral Order* waiver policy.

51. In the *2005 Deferral Order*, the Commission set forth the
    circumstances in which it would consider waiving the integration ban
    for low-cost, limited capability boxes. Specifically, the Commission
    stated that, "as cable systems migrate to all-digital networks, we
    will also consider whether low-cost, limited capability boxes should
    be subject to the integration ban or whether cable operators should
    be permitted to offer such low-cost, limited capability boxes on an
    integrated basis."[^172] Here, while Petitioners indicate that grant
    of the Waiver Requests would allow them to move to an all-digital
    network,[^173] the boxes for which they seek waivers are not
    "limited capability" set-top boxes. Therefore, we cannot grant
    waivers of the integration ban under the *2005 Deferral Order*
    waiver standard. We wish to emphasize, though, that we continue to
    believe that "\[i\]t is critical to the DTV transition that
    consumers have access to"[^174] limited-capability set-top boxes,
    and therefore will entertain and grant future requests that satisfy
    the criteria set forth in the *2005 Deferral Order*.

### The Availability of Downloadable Security

52. We recognized in the *2005 Deferral Order* that a software-based
    security system can significantly reduce costs compared to physical
    separation of security.[^175] Armstrong and Bresnan seek waivers
    until the earlier of (i) December 31, 2009 or (ii) the availability
    of a downloadable conditional access solution.[^176] Based on past
    experience, however, we are not convinced that cable operators in
    fact will deploy a downloadable conditional access system ("DCAS")
    within that specified timeframe. Indeed, in November 2005, the
    National Cable and Telecommunications Association ("NCTA")
    represented that expected national deployment of DCAS at that point
    was approximately two-and-a-half years away, but Armstrong's Waiver
    Request (as well as NCTA's August 2006 waiver request), represented
    that expected nationwide deployment at that point was more than
    three years away.[^177] Needless to say, this is not a record that
    can give us any confidence that DCAS will be deployed within NCTA's
    current timeline. Moreover, while Armstrong's and NCTA's Waiver
    Requests imply that DCAS could take longer than three years to
    deploy,[^178] we have evidence on the record that another
    downloadable security solution will be ready to be deployed by the
    end of this year. As we noted in a January 10, 2007, *Public
    Notice*,[^179] Beyond Broadband Technology (BBT) has developed a
    downloadable security system that will be available "on an 'open
    standard' basis (similar to DOCSIS modems) to all consumer
    electronics and set-top box manufacturers."[^180]

53. We continue to believe that "devices utilizing downloadable security
    \[are\] likely to facilitate a competitive navigation device market,
    aid in the interoperability of a variety of digital devices, and
    thereby further the DTV transition."[^181] We do not believe,
    however, that cable operators should be able to shield itself from
    the clear directives in the Commission's rules implementing Section
    629 by asserting that a better approach is on the ever-expanding
    horizon, particularly when it appears that a similar approach will
    be ready for deployment by cable operators before the end of 2007.

## Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's Rules

54. Petitioners also submitted their Waiver Requests under the general
    waiver provision found in Section 76.7[^182] of the Commission's
    rules.[^183] For the same reasons set forth in subsections A. and B.
    above, we conclude that Petitioners are not eligible for waivers of
    the integration ban under these provisions. Despite Petitioners'
    assertion that grant of the Waiver Requests would further the
    digital transition and the deployment of digital services,[^184] we
    do not believe that these waivers will significantly further these
    public interest benefits, as this assertion is too speculative.
    Moreover, we conclude that, to the extent that there are any public
    interest benefits that might result from a waiver, they would not
    outweigh the significant harm that would result from undermining the
    integration ban and impeding the development of a competitive market
    for navigation devices.[^185]

55. As noted above, the paramount goal of the integration ban is a
    competitive navigation device market, and we conclude that this
    objective outweighs the relative public interest benefits and harms
    associated with Petitioners' requests.[^186] Likewise, the
    Commission has held that common reliance on a separated security
    function was the best means to meet that goal.[^187] Grant of the
    Waiver Requests would create an exception to the integration ban
    rule that would substantially undermine the goals of common
    reliance, *e.g.,* developing a commercial market for navigation
    devices.[^188] While we recognize the concerns that Petitioners
    raise that imposition of the integration ban may lead to higher
    cable bills in the short term,[^189] we believe that "the costs that
    this requirement will impose should be counterbalanced to a
    significant extent by the benefits likely to flow from a more
    competitive and open supply market."[^190] Therefore, we conclude
    that the possible public interest benefits suggested by Petitioners
    in support of their Waiver Requests do not outweigh the substantial
    public interest benefits associated with the integration ban and the
    possible harm that could result from granting Petitioners' waiver
    requests.

## Petitioners' Request for Clarification

56. Some Petitioners asked us to clarify whether refurbished integrated
    set-top boxes purchased on the used equipment market may be deployed
    after the integration ban goes into effect.[^191] Section
    76.1204(a)(1) states that MVPDs subject to the integration ban may
    not "place in service new navigation devices for sale, lease, or use
    that perform both conditional access and other functions in a single
    integrated device" after July 1, 2007.[^192] In the 1999 *Order on
    Reconsideration*, the Commission addressed whether the integration
    ban "applies to navigation devices that are in consumer use \[at the
    time the integration ban goes into effect\] and are returned to
    inventory at a later date."[^193] The Commission concluded that the
    integration ban "is not intended ... to render equipment obsolete
    that has already been manufactured and deployed and still has a
    useful life" and noted that January 1, 2005, the original effective
    date for the integration ban, "was chosen to allow an MVPD to
    recover its investment in subscriber equipment that has been placed
    into service prior" to that date.[^194] We believe that the
    Commission only intended to permit MVPDs to redeploy boxes to their
    own subscribers boxes that are in the cable operator's inventory and
    still have a useful life in order to recover their investment in
    that equipment. We do not think that the Commission anticipated that
    this narrowly targeted relief would lead to a secondary market for
    used integrated set-top boxes after the integration ban has gone
    into effect. Indeed, allowing the development of a secondary market
    for used integrated set-top boxes could essentially defeat the
    Commission's integration ban and thereby seriously impede Congress'
    goal of assuring the commercial availability of navigation devices.
    Accordingly, we clarify that boxes that are returned to an MVPD's
    own inventory may be redeployed by that MVPD -- but that once such a
    box is transferred to a third party, it will be treated as a "new"
    device for purposes of Section 76.1204(a)(1).

# Conclusion

57. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that Petitioners' Waiver
    Requests, as submitted, do not justify waivers under either Section
    629(c), the standard set forth in the *2005 Deferral Order*, or
    Sections 1.3 or 76.7 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we deny
    the Waiver Requests. However, we grant Petitioners leave to file
    amended waiver requests that seek waivers for truly low-cost,
    limited capability set-top boxes, or seek waivers based on a
    commitment to go all-digital by a date-certain such as February 2009
    or sooner, when broadcasters will cease their analog operations.

58. While we deny these waiver requests for the reasons stated above, we
    are cognizant of the difficulties that these operators may face in
    complying with the July 1, 2007 deadline in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of
    the Commission's rules, particularly given the impending deadline.
    Each of these operators filed their waiver requests before July 1,
    2007, and according to NCTA data, all but one of these operators has
    fewer than one million subscribers.[^195] Therefore, we will defer
    enforcement of the rule with respect to the Petitioners until
    September 1, 2007. We encourage the Petitioners to use this time to
    take all steps possible to come into compliance with the separated
    security requirement. Starting from the date of this order,
    Petitioners must place orders for compliant devices.[^196]
    Petitioners able to document that their vendors will be unable to
    fill their orders for compliant devices by September 1, 2007 may
    file for a limited extension of that date,[^197] but we do not
    expect to routinely grant such requests.

# ordering clauses

59. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 629(c) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 549(c), and
    Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207, the above-captioned requests for waiver
    filed by the Petitioners of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) **ARE DENIED**.

60. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section
    0.283 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Monica Shah Desai
>
> Chief, Media Bureau

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1). The separation of the security element
    from the host device required by this rule is referred to as the
    "integration ban."

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(a).

[^3]: *See* [S. Rep]{.smallcaps}. 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).
    *See also* *Bellsouth Interactive Media Services, LLC*, 19 FCC Rcd
    15607, 15608, ¶ 2 (2004).

[^4]: [H.R. Rep. No]{.smallcaps}. 104-204, at 112 (1995).

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: S[. Rep]{.smallcaps}. 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^8]: *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices*, 13 FCC Rcd
    14775, 14808, ¶ 80 (1998) ("*First Report and Order*"); 47 C.F.R. §
    76.1204(a)(1).

[^9]: For marketing purposes, PODs are referred to as "CableCARDs."

[^10]: *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices*, 18 FCC Rcd
    7924, 7926, ¶ 4 (2003).

[^11]: *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996; Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices*, 20 FCC Rcd
    6794, 6802-03, ¶ 13 (2005) ("*2005 Deferral Order*"), *pet. for
    review denied*, *Charter Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 460 F.3d 31
    (D.C. Cir. 2006).

[^12]: *Id.* at 6814, ¶ 31.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *See* *Bend Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a BendBroadband Request
    for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules*, 22
    FCC Rcd 209 (2007) ("*BendBroadband Order*"); *Cablevision Systems
    Corporation's Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's Rules*, 22 FCC Rcd 220 (2007) ("*Cablevision Order*");
    *Comcast Corporation Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of
    the Commission's Rules*, 22 FCC Rcd 228 (2007) ("*Comcast Order*").
    Collectively, these orders are referred to as the "*January 10
    Orders*."

[^15]: *See Charter Communications, Inc.* *Request for Waiver of Section
    76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules*, DA 07-2008 (MB rel. May 4,
    2007) ("*Charter Order*"); *Millennium Telcom, LLC d/b/a OneSource
    Communications* *Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the
    Commission's Rules*, DA 07-2009 (MB rel. May 4, 2007) ("*OneSource
    Order*"); *GCI Cable, Inc*. *Request for Waiver of Section
    76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules*, DA 07-2010 (MB rel. May 4,
    2007) ("*GCI Order*"). Collectively, these orders are referred to as
    the "*May 4 Orders*."

[^16]: *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 213-214, ¶¶ 11-15;
    *Cablevision Order*, 224-225, ¶¶ 12-16; *Comcast Order*, 22 FCC Rcd
    at 235-238, ¶¶ 15-23; *Charter Order* at ¶¶ 13-16; *OneSource Order*
    at ¶ 13.

[^17]: *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 214-215, ¶¶ 16-20; *Comcast
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 238-241, ¶¶ 24-30; *Charter Order* at ¶ 17;
    *OneSource Order* at ¶¶ 12-17.

[^18]: In the *OneSource Order* and the *GCI Order*, the Bureau granted
    waiver on similar grounds. *See OneSource Order* at ¶¶ 16-18; *GCI
    Order* at ¶¶ 14-18.

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.1207.

[^21]: *See* Armstrong Utilities, Inc. Emergency Request for Waiver of
    47 C.F.R. § 1204(a)(1) and Request for Clarification (filed November
    6, 2006) ("Armstrong Waiver Request").

[^22]: *See* National Cable & Telecommunications Association's Request
    for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) at 1 (filed Aug. 16, 2006)
    ("*NCTA Request for Waiver*"). NCTA seeks waiver for all integrated
    set-top boxes until the earlier of December 31, 2009 or until all
    cable operators have deployed downloadable security. *Id*.

[^23]: Armstrong Waiver Request at 2.

[^24]: *Id*. at 4-6.

[^25]: *Id.* at 2-3, 5-7.

[^26]: *Id.* at 1-3, 7.

[^27]: *Id.* at 7.

[^28]: The Consumer Electronics Association ("CEA") belatedly filed
    comments and a motion to accept late-filed comments on March 12,
    2006, a week after comments were due. *See* Comments of Consumer
    Electronics Association on Armstrong Utilities Inc. Request for
    Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1), CS Docket No. 97-80, CSR-7112-Z
    (filed March 12, 2007) ("CEA *Ex Parte* in CSR-7112-Z"); and Motion
    of the Consumer Electronics Association to Accept Late-Filed
    Comments and for Extension of Time to File Reply Comments, CS Docket
    No. 97-80, CSR-7114-Z (filed March 12, 2007) ("Motion to Accept
    Late-Filed Comments"). In response to these filings, Armstrong filed
    a motion to strike and reply and addressed CEA's arguments on the
    merits. *See* Motion to Strike and Reply of Armstrong Utilities,
    Inc., CS Docket, No. 97-80, CSR-7112-Z (filed March 21, 2007)
    ("Motion to Strike"). In this order, we deny CEA's Motion to Accept
    Late-Filed Comments. We agree with Armstrong that CEA failed to show
    good cause to accept its late-filed comments. *See* Motion to Strike
    at 2-4. CEA claims that "the large number of \[similar\] filings
    spread over more than one docket led to a misunderstanding as to the
    comment dates." *See* Motion to Accept Late-Filed Comments at 2.
    Yet, CEA timely submitted comments on requests for waiver filed by
    the City of San Bruno and RCN Corporation which were included in the
    same public notice as Armstrong's Waiver Request. *See* Comments of
    the Consumer Electronics Association on the City of San Bruno
    Request for Waiver of 47 C.F. R. § 76.1204(a)(1), CS Docket No.
    97-80, CSR 7116-Z (filed March 5, 2007); Comments of the Consumer
    Electronics Association on RCN Corporation Request for Waiver of 47
    C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1), CS Docket No. 97-80, CSR 7113-Z (filed March
    5, 2007). We find that CEA has not shown good cause to accept its
    late-filed comments. Thus, pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the
    Commission's rules, we will treat the comments filed by CEA on March
    12, 2007 as an *ex parte* presentation. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^29]: ACA Comments in CSR-7112-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7112-Z
    at 1-2.

[^30]: ACA Comments in CSR-7112-Z at 5.

[^31]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7112-Z at 4.

[^32]: *Id.* at 5.

[^33]: CEA ex parte in CSR-7112-Z at 1.

[^34]: *Id.* at 2.

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.1207.

[^37]: *See* Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC's Request for Waiver of 47
    C.F.R. § 1204(a)(1) (filed December 27, 2006) ("Atlantic Broadband
    Waiver Request").

[^38]: *Id*. at 6-8.

[^39]: *Id.* at 8.

[^40]: *Id.* at 4-6.

[^41]: *Id.* at 9 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.3).

[^42]: *Id.*

[^43]: *Id.*

[^44]: *See* discussion *supra* n.28. We find that CEA has not shown
    good cause to accept its late-filed comments. Thus, pursuant to
    Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, we will treat the comments
    filed by CEA on March 12, 2007 as an *ex parte* presentation. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^45]: ACA Comments in CSR-7110-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7110-Z
    at 1-2.

[^46]: ACA Comments in CSR-7110-Z at 6.

[^47]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7110-Z at 4.

[^48]: *Id.* at 5.

[^49]: CEA Ex Parte in CSR-7110-Z at 1.

[^50]: *Id.* at 2.

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.1207.

[^54]: *See* Bresnan Communications, LLC's Request for Waiver of 47
    C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) (filed December 19, 2006) ("Bresnan Waiver
    Request").

[^55]: Bresnan Waiver Request at 1, 2-9. Bresnan operates cable systems
    passing approximately 600,000 homes in approximately 200 communities
    in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Waiver Request at 3-4.

[^56]: *Id.* at 7. Bresnan notes, for instance, that without a waiver it
    will be unable to construct a hub for a fiber optic network needed
    to offer new HD, VOD, and other digital services to its southern
    region and to offer service reliability throughout its four-state
    region. *Id.* at 6.

[^57]: *Id.*

[^58]: *Id*. at 9.

[^59]: *Id.* at 10-11. For instance, in support of its claim that
    granting the waiver will have a limited impact on consumers, Bresnan
    states that, "Not one person in Buffalo \[Wyoming\] has ever asked
    Bresnan to supply a CableCARD." Reply Comments at 2.

[^60]: ACA Comments in CSR-7117-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7117-Z
    at 1-2, CEA Comments in CSR-7117-Z at 1.

[^61]: ACA Comments in CSR-7117-Z at 6-7.

[^62]: *Id.* at 7.

[^63]: *Id.* at 1-2, n.2.

[^64]: CEA Comments in CSR-7117-Z at 1.

[^65]: *Id.* at 1-2 (citing *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, Denying
    Comcast's Petition for Waiver, CSR-7912-Z, CS Docket No. 97-80 (Jan.
    10, 2007) at 12 ¶ 26; NPG Cable, Inc. Petition for Waiver,
    CSR-7109-Z, CS Docket No. 97-80 (Feb. 22, 2007) at 6-7).

[^66]: *Id.* at 2.

[^67]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 549(a), 549(c).

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7, 76.1207.

[^69]: *See* Cable & Communications Corporation and its parent,
    Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Request for Waiver of 47
    C.F.R. § 1204(a)(1) and Request for Clarification (filed March 12,
    2007) ("C&CC Waiver Request").

[^70]: C&CC Waiver Request at 5.

[^71]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^72]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7144-Z and CSR-7145-Z at 7.

[^73]: CEA Comments in CSR-7144-Z and CSR-7145-Z at 3.

[^74]: C&CC Reply at 2.

[^75]: *See* Cequel Communications, LLC d/b/a Suddenlink Communications
    Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) (filed December 5,
    2006) ("Suddenlink Waiver Request").

[^76]: *Id.* at 4-12.

[^77]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^78]: *Id.* at 6-12.

[^79]: *Id.* at 7-10.

[^80]: *Id.* at 11.

[^81]: *Id.* at 12-15.

[^82]: *Id.* at 15-16.

[^83]: *See* discussion *supra* n.28. We find that CEA has not shown
    good cause to accept its late-filed comments. Thus, pursuant to
    Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, we will treat the comments
    filed by CEA on March 12, 2007 as an *ex parte* presentation. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^84]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7115-Z at 1-2.

[^85]: *Id.* at 4.

[^86]: *Id.* at 5.

[^87]: CEA *Ex Parte* in CSR-7115-Z at 1.

[^88]: Suddenlink belatedly filed a reply and a motion for an extension
    of time on March 21, 2007, six days after reply comments were due.
    *See* Motion for an Extension of Time of Cequel Communications, LLC,
    d/b/a Suddenlink Communications, CS Docket, No. 97-80, CSR-7115-Z
    (filed March 21, 2007) (Motion for Extension of Time). In this order
    we deny Suddenlink's Motion for Extension of Time as we find that it
    has not shown good cause to accept its late-filed reply comments.
    Thus, pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, we will
    treat the reply comments filed by Suddenlink on March 21, 2007 as an
    *ex parte* presentation ("Suddenlink *Ex Parte* in CSR-7115-Z"). 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^89]: Suddenlink *Ex Parte* in CSR-7115-Z at 3-4.

[^90]: Knology, Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1)
    (filed April 2, 2007) ("Knology Waiver Request").

[^91]: *Id.* at 3.

[^92]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^93]: *Id.* at 6; *see* *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 215, ¶ 20.

[^94]: Knology Waiver Request at 3.

[^95]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^96]: Id. at 4-7.

[^97]: *Id.* at 3-4

[^98]: *Id.* at 4.

[^99]: *Id.*

[^100]: CEA Comments in CSR-7200-Z at 2.

[^101]: *Id.* at 3.

[^102]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^103]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^104]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.1207.

[^105]: *See* NPG Cable, Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §
    1204(a)(1) and Request for Clarification (filed December 14, 2006)
    ("NPG Waiver Request").

[^106]: NPG Waiver Request at 4-7.

[^107]: *Id.* at 6.

[^108]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^109]: *Id.* at 7 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.3).

[^110]: *Id.*

[^111]: *Id.* at 8.

[^112]: ACA Comments in CSR-7109-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7109-Z
    at 1-2.

[^113]: ACA Comments in CSR-7109-Z at 9.

[^114]: *Id*.

[^115]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7109-Z at 4.

[^116]: *Id.* at 5.

[^117]: CEA Comments in CSR-7109-Z at 1.

[^118]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^119]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^120]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7, 76.1207.

[^121]: *See* Orange Broadband Operating Company, LLC and Carolina
    Broadband, LLC Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 1204(a)(1) and
    Request for Clarification (filed December 27, 2006) ("Orange
    Broadband Waiver Request").

[^122]: *Id*. at 4-7.

[^123]: *Id.* at 6.

[^124]: *Id.* at 7 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.3).

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: *Id.* at 7-8.

[^127]: *See* discussion *supra* n.28. We find that CEA has not shown
    good cause to accept its late-filed comments. Thus, pursuant to
    Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, we will treat the comments
    filed by CEA on March 12, 2007 as an *ex parte* presentation. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^128]: ACA Comments in CSR-7111-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7111-Z
    at 1-2.

[^129]: ACA Comments in CSR-7111-Z at 10.

[^130]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7111-Z at 4.

[^131]: *Id.* at 5.

[^132]: CEA *Ex Parte* in CSR-7111-Z at 1.

[^133]: *Id.* at 2.

[^134]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^135]: Original Waiver Request at 1.

[^136]: *Id*.

[^137]: Original Waiver Request at 5 (citing *2005 Deferral Order*, 20
    FCC Rcd at 6813-14, ¶ 37).

[^138]: *Id*. at 5-6.

[^139]: *Id.* at 6 (emphasis omitted).

[^140]: *Id*. at Exhibit 1.

[^141]: *Id*. at 2. Specifically, Sunflower Broadband asks that "the
    Commission clarify that cable operators may still deploy after July
    1, 2007 refurbished integrated boxes purchased on the used equipment
    market." *Id*.

[^142]: *Id.* at 7-8 (*citing Implementation of Section 30 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC
    Rcd. 7596 (1999) at ¶ 35 (*Order on Reconsideration*)).

[^143]: Supplement to Original Waiver Request at 3-4.

[^144]: Original Waiver Request at 3-5.

[^145]: *See* discussion *supra* n.28. We find that CEA has not shown
    good cause to accept its late-filed comments. Thus, pursuant to
    Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, we will treat the comments
    filed by CEA on March 12, 2007 as an *ex parte* presentation. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^146]: ACA Comments in CSR-7114-Z at 3, Motorola Comments in CSR-7114-Z
    at 1-2.

[^147]: ACA Comments in CSR-7114-Z at 12.

[^148]: *Id.* at 4.

[^149]: *Id*. at 5.

[^150]: Motorola Comments in CSR-7114-Z at 4.

[^151]: CEA *Ex Parte* in CSR-7114-Z at 1.

[^152]: CEA Comments in CSR-7113-Z at 5 (incorporated by reference in
    CEA *Ex Parte* in CSR-7114-Z).

[^153]: *See, e.g.*, Armstrong Waiver Request at 1; Sunflower Broadband
    Waiver Request at 1.

[^154]: *See*, *e.g.*, Suddenlink Waiver Request at 1. Section 76.1207
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1207, implements Section
    629(c) of the Act and tracks the language of that statutory
    provision almost verbatim.

[^155]: *2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6813-6814, ¶ 37.

[^156]: *See*, *e.g.*, Atlantic Broadband Waiver Request at 9; Orange
    Broadband Waiver Request at 7.

[^157]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^158]: *See, e.g.*, Orange Broadband Waiver Request at 6; Armstrong
    Waiver Request at 2.

[^159]: *See BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 213-214, ¶¶ 13-14
    (denying BendBroadband's argument that waiver was necessary to
    assist the development or introduction of HD and VOD, wireless,
    business services, and more robust broadband, and citing
    Congressional intent for a narrow reading of the waiver provisions
    of Section 629(c)), *Comcast Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 235-237, ¶¶
    16-19; *Charter Order* at ¶¶ 13-16; *OneSource Order* at ¶ 13.

[^160]: *See, e.g.*, Sunflower Original Waiver Request at 2; Orange
    Broadband Waiver Request at 2.

[^161]: *BendBroadband Order* at 214, ¶ 14.

[^162]: *See, e.g.*, Suddenlink Waiver Request at 11-12; Orange
    Broadband Waiver Request at 5.

[^163]: *See BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 214-215, ¶ 17; *Comcast
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 239, ¶ 26; *Charter Order* at ¶ 17; *OneSource
    Order* at ¶¶ 12-17.

[^164]: In fact, several years ago Pace Micro developed precisely this
    type of device. The "Digital Cable Adapter" was a unidirectional
    "set-back" device that would have decoded digital signals for use
    with analog televisions and VCRs without any advanced features.
    *See* Press Release, Pace Micro, *Pace Unveils the World's First
    Digital Cable Adapter* (June 9, 2003). This device, which was
    exhibited at the 2003 NCTA National Show in Chicago, would have cost
    about \$69 -- but ultimately was never mass produced due to a lack
    of interest from cable operators. *See* Jeff Baumgartner, *New
    MSO-backed JV Proposes Sub-\$100 Set-Top with Downloadable
    Security*, [CED Broadband Direct]{.smallcaps}, Dec. 22, 2003,
    *available at*
    http://www.cedmagazine.com/toc-bbdirect/2006/20061222.html.

[^165]: *2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6813, ¶ 37. Similarly, the
    Commission discussed how low-cost, limited-capability set-top boxes
    could facilitate the migration of cable systems to all-digital
    networks. *See id*. Advanced capabilities are not necessary to
    accomplish that goal, either; all that is required is a set-top box
    that can make digital cable programming viewable on an analog
    television set.

[^166]: *See BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 214-215, ¶ 17; *Comcast
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 239, ¶ 26.

[^167]: *2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6813, ¶ 37 (emphasis
    added).

[^168]: Although the Motorola DCT-700 does not contain any of the listed
    capabilities, it does enable subscribers to access EPGs, PPV
    services, VOD and interactive television. In addition, it is our
    understanding that the DCT-700 supports the use of switched digital
    capabilities.

[^169]: *See* *generally* *Implementation of Section 304 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1999: Commercial Availability of
    Navigation Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer
    Electronics Equipment*, 18 FCC Rcd 518 (2003) (seeking comment on
    the Memorandum of Understanding and the rules proposed therein).

[^170]: Letter from Carl E. Vogel, President and Chief Executive
    Officer, Charter Communications, et al. to The Honorable Michael K.
    Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, *attaching*
    Memorandum of Understanding Among Cable MSOs and Consumer
    Electronics Manufacturers at 10 (Dec. 19, 2002). The section
    includes a discussion of EPGs: "Cable operators' EPG will be
    provided for advanced interactive digital cable products via OCAP or
    its successor technology." *Id*.

[^171]: NCTA Reply Comments, CS Docket No. 97-80, PP Docket No. 00-67 at
    Appendix 1, page 7 (filed April 28, 2003). *See also* National Cable
    & Telecommunications Association's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R.
    § 76.1204(a)(1) at 14 (filed Aug. 16, 2006) ("NCTA Waiver Request)
    (describing VOD and EPGs as "advanced services").

[^172]: *Id.* at 6813, ¶ 37.

[^173]: *See, e.g.*, Orange Broadband Waiver Request at 6; Armstrong
    Waiver Request at 2.

[^174]: *See 2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6813, ¶ 37.

[^175]: *2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6794, ¶ 31.

[^176]: Armstrong Waiver Request at 2; Bresnan Waiver Request at 1.

[^177]: *See* Armstrong Waiver Request at 2; NCTA Waiver Request at
    7-13.

[^178]: *See* Armstrong Waiver Request at 2; NCTA Waiver Request at 1
    (by requesting waiver until cable operators deploy downloadable
    security or December 31, 2009, whichever is earlier, Armstrong and
    NCTA suggest that this deployment may occur in 2010 or beyond).

[^179]: *See* *Commission Reiterates that Downloadable Security
    Technology Satisfies the Commission\'s Rules on Set-Top Boxes and
    Notes Beyond Broadband Technology\'s Development of Downloadable
    Security Solution*, DA 07-51 (MB rel. Jan. 10, 2007) (Public
    Notice); 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204. *See also* Letter from Seth A.
    Davidson, Counsel for Beyond Broadband Technology LLC, to Marlene
    Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 22, 2006)
    (noting BBT's plans to offer "'severable security' based on a
    flexible, cost-efficient, and 'open standard' downloadable
    conditional access system").

[^180]: BBT Reply Comments, CSR-7131-Z, CS Docket No. 97-80, filed Apr.
    16, 2007 at 3.

[^181]: *Id*.

[^182]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.7 ("On petition by any interested party . .
    . the Commission may waive any provision of this part 76. . . .").

[^183]: We will also consider Petitioners' Waiver Requests under the
    general authority of Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.3 ("Any provision of the rules may be waived by the
    Commission on its own motion . . . if good cause therefore is
    shown.")

[^184]: *See, e.g.*, Orange Broadband Waiver Request at 6; Armstrong
    Waiver Request at 2.

[^185]: The benefits of the integration ban include the consumer savings
    and technological advances that will result from a competitive
    market as well as "the fact that Congress regarded the commercial
    availability of navigation devices from independent sources as a
    benefit in and of itself." *Charter Communications, Inc. v. FCC*,
    No. 460 F.3d 31, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting *2005 Deferral Order*,
    20 FCC Rcd at 6809, ¶ 29).

[^186]: *See Comcast Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 241, ¶ 31, n.109.

[^187]: *See Comcast Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 241, ¶ 31. In the *2005
    Deferral Order*, the Commission explained the justification for
    common reliance:

    > We believe that common reliance by MVPDs and consumer electronic
    > manufacturers on an identical security function will align MVPDs'
    > incentives with those of other industry participants so that MVPDs
    > will plan the development of their services and technical
    > standards to incorporate devices that can be independently
    > manufactured, sold, and improved upon. Moreover, if MVPDs must
    > take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far
    > more likely that they will continue to support and take into
    > account the need to support services that will work with
    > independently supplied and purchased equipment. We believe that
    > cable operator reliance on the same security technology and
    > conditional access interface that consumer electronics
    > manufacturers must rely on is necessary to facilitate innovation
    > in competitive navigation device products and should not
    > substantially impair innovation in cable operator-supplied
    > products . . . \[T\]he concept of common reliance is intended to
    > assure that cable operator development and deployment of new
    > products and services does not interfere with the functioning of
    > consumer electronics equipment or the introduction of such
    > equipment into the commercial market for navigation devices.

    *2005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6809-6810, ¶ 30. *See also*
    *Charter Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 460 F.3d 31, 40-41 (D.C. Cir.
    2006).

[^188]: *See, e.g.*, Armstrong Waiver Request at 3 (noting unprecedented
    consumer demand for the DCT-700).

[^189]: *See id*.

[^190]: 2*005 Deferral Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 6809, ¶ 29.

[^191]: *See, e.g.*, Orange Broadband Waiver Request at 7; Atlantic
    Broadband Waiver Request at 9 ("Atlantic Broadband asks the
    Commission to clarify that cable operators may still deploy after
    July 1, 2007 refurbished integrated boxes purchased on the used
    equipment market.").

[^192]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1).

[^193]: 14 FCC Rcd 7596, 7612 at ¶ 34.

[^194]: *Id*. at ¶ 35.

[^195]: *See* Top 25 MSOs - As of December 2006, NCTA, *available at*
    http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=73.

[^196]: Petitioners may deploy devices with integrated security during
    this limited period.

[^197]: If this situation does arise, we expect the Petitioner to file
    its request as soon as it receives notification from its vendor. We
    expect any such requests to include specific information as to the
    reason for the extension, and that the request would, at the very
    least: (1) state that the Petitioner has placed an order for a
    sufficient number of compliant boxes that, if filled, would satisfy
    its equipment needs, specifies the number of boxes ordered, and
    provides information to support its statement that the number of
    compliant boxes ordered would be sufficient, if the order could be
    filled; (2) states that the manufacturer has informed the Petitioner
    that the order will not be filled by September 1, 2007; (3) sets
    forth when the order will be filled; (4) requests deferral of the
    integration ban until that time; (5) states that the Petitioner
    intends to order only enough integrated boxes to meet its needs
    until compliant boxes can be obtained, indicates how many such boxes
    it will be ordering and provides information to support those
    numbers; and (6) attaches all relevant documentation, including
    order forms and correspondence with its manufacturers.