Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | **PP Docket No. 00-67**      |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **Compatibility Between Cable    | ) |                              |
| Systems**                        | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **And Consumer Electronics       |   |                              |
| Equipment**                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: April 13, 2000 Released: April 14, 2000**

**Comment Date: May 24, 2000**

**Reply Comment Date: June 8, 2000**

By the Commission:

INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we seek comment on rules to
    resolve outstanding issues regarding the compatibility of cable
    television systems, digital television receivers, set-top boxes, and
    other equipment used by consumers to receive and enjoy the
    ever-increasing array of programming and other services available
    over cable television systems. Each of these devices plays a vital
    role in transmitting and converting signals that eventually are
    transformed into the audio, video, textual, and other products and
    services that consumers can receive over cable. Like a chain that is
    only as strong as its weakest link, the combination of devices
    needed to provide the full array of cable services depends**,** in
    the digital age, upon the compatibility of each device with the
    others.

2.  While cable television has always depended upon this type of
    equipment compatibility, the technological advances which accompany
    the transition from analog to digital have made compatibility issues
    more complex. All of the industries with an interest in ensuring
    compatibility - - including primarily cable operators and
    manufacturers of television sets and set-top boxes - - are planning,
    developing, or rolling out new technologies and services, largely
    based on digital technology. The introduction and development of
    digital technology directly implicates compatibility issues, as new
    digital products must be made compatible with each other, as well as
    with existing analog technology that will remain in households and
    on the market for some time to come. Many of these new technologies
    and services contemplate much greater interaction by the viewer. The
    transformation of the cable business from a largely one-way form of
    transmission (from the cable operator to the viewer) to a two-way
    interactive model (with the viewer sending messages, requests, and
    other data "upstream") requires profound changes in equipment
    design.

3.  Because both the cable and the consumer electronics industries stand
    to benefit from compatibility, it is not surprising that
    negotiations between them have produced consensus on a wide range of
    issues. The Commission has encouraged and facilitated these
    discussions, in the hope and belief that comprehensive market-driven
    solutions were attainable and would be superior to a regulatory
    approach. The February 2000 agreements between the Consumer
    Electronics Association and the National Cable Television
    Association have resolved two of four major outstanding
    compatibility issues.[^1] The two critical unresolved matters are
    requirements for a DTV receiver to be labeled
    "cable-compatible"(specifically whether these receivers should be
    required to include an IEEE 1394 connector) and licensing terms for
    copy protection technology.[^2] We are concerned that further delay
    in resolving these issues could begin to have deleterious effects on
    the deployment of a universe of products and services that will
    benefit the American public and, indeed, delay the implementation of
    DTV. Since the industries have not resolved these issues yet, we
    reluctantly initiate this rulemaking proceeding.

# BACKGROUND

4.  Congress and the Commission have both long been concerned with
    compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics
    equipment such as television receivers. In 1992, Congress added
    Section 624A[^3] to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    ("Communications Act"), directing the Commission to report on "means
    of assuring compatibility between televisions and video cassette
    recorders and cable systems, consistent with the need to prevent
    theft of cable services" and then to "issue such regulations as are
    necessary to assure such compatibility." More specifically, Section
    624A(b)(2)(A) directed the Commission to "specify the technical
    requirements with which a television receiver or video cassette
    recorder must comply in order to be sold as 'cable compatible' or
    'cable ready.'" [^4]

5.  In the rulemaking that followed, the Commission imposed certain
    standards and requirements for analog cable transmissions,[^5] and
    recognized the desirability of "standards for cable digital
    transmissions."[^6] The Commission concluded that "standards for
    cable digital transmissions are necessary to avoid future
    compatibility problems when cable systems use digital transmission
    methods, and to allow the mass production of economical consumer
    equipment that is compatible with cable digital services."[^7]
    Commenting parties expressed the opinion that industry standards
    could be developed by 1995, and we declined to adopt standards at
    that time.[^8] Since then industry representatives have engaged in
    numerous discussions on compatibility issues.[^9]

6.  Section 624A(d) instructs the Commission to review and modify its
    compatibility regulations "to reflect improvements and changes in
    cable systems, television receivers, video cassette recorders, and
    similar technology." [^10] Section 624A thus provides authority for
    the Commission to set cable transmission standards so that cable
    subscribers will be able to enjoy the full benefits of both the
    programming available on cable systems and the functions available
    on the television receiver. [^11] The 1996 Act amended Section 624A
    of the Communications Act to include the finding that "compatibility
    among televisions, video cassette recorders, and cable systems can
    be assured with narrow technical standards that mandate a minimum
    degree of common design and operation, leaving all features,
    functions, protocols, and other product and service options for
    selection through open competition in the market."[^12] The 1996 Act
    also added Section 624A(c)(2)(D), which requires that compatibility
    regulations adopted by the Commission shall \"not affect features,
    functions, protocols, and other product and service options other
    than those specified in paragraph (1)(B), including
    telecommunications interface equipment, home automation
    communications, and computer network services.\"[^13] The referenced
    paragraph, Section 624A(c)(1)(B), requires the Commission, in
    fashioning regulations, to consider \"the costs and benefits to
    consumers of imposing compatibility requirements on cable operators
    and television manufacturers in a manner that, while providing
    effective protection against theft of unauthorized reception of
    cable service, will minimize interference with or nullification of
    the special functions of subscribers\' television receivers or video
    cassette recorders, including functions that permit the subscriber
    \-- (i) to watch a program on one channel while simultaneously using
    a video cassette recorder to tape a program on another channel: (ii)
    to use a video cassette recorder to tape two consecutive programs
    that appear on different channels; and (iii) to use advanced
    television picture generation and display features. . . \"[^14]

7.  The 1996 Act also added Section 629 to the Communications Act,
    directing the Commission to adopt rules to assure commercial
    availability of "navigation devices" used to access programming and
    other services from cable operators and other multichannel video
    programming distributors ("MVPDs").[^15] Navigation devices include
    television receivers, set-top boxes, and other equipment. This
    provision sought to increase competition by, for example, allowing
    consumers to purchase set-top boxes from retail electronics stores
    rather than having to lease boxes from one source- their cable
    operator.[^16] Set-top boxes are becoming increasingly sophisticated
    in terms of both the types of services available over them and the
    technology needed to supply those services. For third parties to
    manufacture set-top boxes compatible with cable systems, however,
    they would need to know various technical features of those systems.
    In light of cable operators' concerns that disclosure of this
    information could jeopardize the integrity of cable systems, section
    629 instructs the Commission to ensure commercial availability of
    navigation devices without jeopardizing signal security.

8.  In the *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices*, Report and
    Order in CS Docket 97-80 *("Navigation Devices Order")*, the
    Commission adopted rules to implement section 629 and facilitate the
    retail sale and competitive development of devices used to receive
    cable television and other MVPD service.[^17] These devices will be
    available for use and attachment through commonly used interfaces or
    an interface that conforms to appropriate technical standards
    promulgated by a national standards organization. The Order provides
    for the separation of security from navigation functions, thus
    allowing cable operators to protect the integrity of their networks
    while allowing others to develop and market competitive means by
    which consumers can navigate through the various cable offerings. By
    July 1, 2000, consumers should be able to purchase at retail
    television sets and set-top boxes that are compatible with cable
    "security modules" sold or leased by the cable company. To this end,
    the cable industry has been developing specifications for a "POD
    (Point of Deployment) module" and a "POD Interface," so that
    consumer electronics manufacturers can build equipment to
    interoperate with cable operator supplied security modules.[^18]

9.  Although many cable systems are already offering tiers of digital
    cable service, the transition to digital television *broadcasting*
    has heightened the importance of developing digital consumer
    electronics equipment that is compatible with cable transmissions.
    Incumbent television broadcasters have begun broadcasting in a
    digital format, and additional broadcasters will begin doing so over
    the next few years, in accordance with a specified timetable.[^19]
    Broadcasters will have both digital and analog signals for some
    period of time, after which the analog frequencies must be
    relinquished and the conversion to a fully digital broadcast
    television environment will be complete.[^20] Both during and after
    this transition, however, it is important that digital television
    receivers be able to display the digital broadcast signals (and
    other programming) that cable systems offer and that consumers have
    a clear understanding of the capabilities of the digital television
    receivers that they purchase. Without resolution of outstanding
    compatibility issues, the transition from analog to digital
    broadcasting will be slowed, and the reclamation and reallocation of
    a portion of the spectrum now allocated for analog television
    service will be delayed. Even the development of nonbroadcast cable
    services that require digital display devices will be inhibited.

10. In a separate proceeding, we have sought comment on whether
    broadcasters may compel cable carriage of digital broadcast signals
    under the must-carry provisions of the Communications Act and our
    rules.[^21] We specifically sought comment regarding compatibility
    between digital television receivers and cable systems, both where a
    television set connects directly to a cable system and where the
    connection is through a set-top box.[^22] We asked for comment
    regarding the need for set-top boxes to process the various kinds of
    digital television signals.[^23] We suggested that some of the
    digital compatibility issues could be addressed through the use of a
    bus or an interface,[^24] such as IEEE-1394, a standard interface
    that, among other things, provides for two-way communications and,
    hence, greater subscriber interaction.[^25] We asked whether digital
    television receivers will be digital \"cable ready,\" meaning a
    separate set-top box will not be required to receive digital signals
    over cable.[^26] We also sought comment on whether the matters at
    issue in this proceeding suggest the need for an industry receiver
    standard.[^27]

11. A related concern, also addressed in the *Must Carry Notice*,
    involves copy protection, particularly in the context of the
    interface between digital television receivers and set-top
    boxes.[^28] In general, if digital content passes across an
    interface---whether between a television receiver and a set top box,
    a POD security module and a host device ([e.g.]{.underline}, a set
    top box or a television receiver), or some other interface---that
    content is susceptible to copying if the interface is unprotected.
    With a digital source, high quality copies can be made and further
    reproduced with virtually no degradation in quality**.** This has
    prompted content owners to express strong concerns about
    unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. In the *Must
    Carry Notice*, we cited industry efforts aimed at protecting the
    digital video and audio content riding on and between personal
    computers, digital receivers, set-top boxes, digital video cassette
    recorders and digital video disk players.[^29] We asked whether copy
    protection is a matter that the Commission should explore in further
    detail in this proceeding, as that issue relates to the subject of
    equipment compatibility.[^30]

12. With the advent of digital television broadcasting and the
    appearance of a growing number of digital television receivers in
    the marketplace, completing the standards setting process becomes an
    increasingly important priority, in order to protect consumers. As
    we noted in 1994, "standardization is needed to ensure the
    establishment and effective operation of a competitive market in
    consumer hardware and software products for connection to digital
    cable service."[^31] The cable and consumer electronics industries
    have made substantial progress towards development of compatibility
    standards, particularly since their July 1999 commitment to the
    Commission to resolve outstanding issues by October 31, 1999. [^32]
    The February 22, 2000 letter from the Presidents of the NCTA and CEA
    is the latest in a series of reports on industry agreements.[^33]
    The letter and its two appendices detail agreements on technical
    requirements for direct connection of digital television receivers
    to digital cable systems and on provision of tuning and program
    schedule information to support the navigation function, including
    on-screen program guides.

13. These agreements leave two important unresolved issues regarding
    "cable-compatible" DTV receivers. First, the parties disagree on
    whether every receiver designated "cable ready" should have a 1394
    connector, and, more generally, on how to label DTV receivers with
    different features .[^34] Second, there is not yet agreement on
    licensing terms for copy protection technology. If this matter were
    to have an effect on DTV hardware design, then it could delay the
    introduction of cable ready DTV receivers. Accordingly, we seek
    comment below on whether Commission-adopted hardware standards could
    avoid this potential problem. Because virtually all of the major
    issues have already been resolved through industry cooperation, we
    are confident that this proceeding can be completed promptly and in
    a manner that, consistent with our statutory directive, will not
    "impair the development of new cable technologies and services and
    of appropriate interfaces between such technologies and services and
    of appropriate interfaces between such technologies and services
    with other media."[^35]

# Scope of Compatibility Standards

14. It is useful to begin by reviewing the compatibility standards that
    we adopted in the analog domain.[^36] First, we required cable
    systems and consumer electronics equipment to utilize a standard
    channel plan for NTSC transmissions.[^37] Second, we prohibited
    cable systems from scrambling channels on the basic service tier.
    Third, we specified standards for labeling a television receiver as
    "cable-ready." Fourth, we required cable operators to offer
    subscribers "supplemental equipment" to enable them to use special
    features and functions of their television equipment with cable
    service, [e.g.]{.underline}, picture-in-picture, recording from one
    channel while watching another. In particular, we require cable
    operators to offer subscribers equipment providing direct reception
    of all unscrambled signals and simultaneous reception of any two
    scrambled signals transmitted.[^38] In addition to adopting rules
    addressing these matters, the Commission expressed support for an
    industry-developed standard "decoder interface" to separate security
    functions from other functions, for standards for cable digital
    transmissions, and for open entry into the business of supplying
    cable home equipment. Our equipment compatibility rules also place
    certain requirements on television receiving equipment that is
    marketed as cable ready or cable compatible.[^39] In essence, then,
    our compatibility rules and scrambling limitations were designed to
    ensure that consumers could access a range of cable services using a
    "cable-ready" television receiver without obtaining additional
    equipment from the cable operator.

15. The CEA-NCTA agreement on "the technical requirements for the
    network interface specifications that permit direct connection of
    consumer digital receivers to cable television systems" supports
    provision of several "baseline" cable television services, including
    reception of analog television signals and digital television
    programs transmitted in-the-clear, some scrambled digital television
    programs (provided the receiver is equipped with a Point of
    Deployment, or "POD" module from the cable operator), and some event
    information to support the receiver's navigation function.[^40] In
    essence, the technical requirements agreement follows the analog
    model in our compatibility regulations. The separate "Carriage of
    PSIP over Cable Plants" agreement appears to indicate the cable
    industry's intention to scramble digital cable programs (but not
    retransmitted terrestrial broadcast signals).[^41] Hence the range
    of services available without equipment supplied by the cable
    operator ([i.e.]{.underline}, a POD module) will apparently be more
    limited in the digital domain than in the analog domain, where basic
    cable programming services are not scrambled.

16. We seek comment on what digital services consumers will be able to
    access with a television receiver that meets the standards specified
    in the CEA-NCTA agreement and no additional operator-supplied
    equipment. Will these include anything other than retransmitted
    local broadcast signals? Will a POD security module be needed in
    order to receive packages of non-premium digital services as well as
    premium services offered on a per-channel or per-program basis?

17. We observe that our decision to prohibit analog basic service tier
    scrambling (subject to a waiver procedure), while primarily
    justified as "appropriate as a means to promote compatibility
    between cable service and consumer electronics equipment," was also
    based in part on the fact that cable operators had previously
    generally not scrambled these signals.[^42] What is the current
    practice regarding digital cable services? Are these services even
    provided on the basic service tier, or are they generally provided
    via cable programming service tiers?[^43] Should we permit
    scrambling of nonbroadcast digital channels on the basic service
    tier, either by general rule or liberal waiver? Would prohibition of
    such scrambling induce cable operators to remove digital cable
    services from the basic tier and move them to CPS tiers? Does the
    answer to this question depend on resolution of the question, now
    pending in the digital must-carry proceeding, of whether
    retransmitted local digital broadcast signals must be provided on
    the same basic service tier that includes local analog broadcast
    signals? We also seek comment on whether the transition to digital
    necessitates any amendment to our requirements for cable operators
    to offer supplemental equipment to subscribers, to enable them to
    use special features of their digital television receivers.[^44]

18. With respect to the question of labeling television receivers
    generally, we observe as a preliminary matter that consumer
    electronics manufacturers are certainly free to build television
    receivers with or without 1394 connectors. Here we seek comment on
    whether a receiver without a 1394 connector should be labeled as
    "cable ready." It is our understanding that OpenCable[^45] standards
    include availability of a 1394 connection. We seek comment on
    whether this is correct or whether OpenCable requires a 1394
    connection only on certain devices.[^46] In particular, does
    OpenCable require a 1394 connection on set-top boxes and, if so,
    what are the implications for equipment labeling? Cable operators
    generally believe that the interactivity afforded by a 1394
    connection will become an integral feature of cable service, and
    hence that no receiver that lacks such a connection should be deemed
    "cable ready." Does the Congressional finding that "compatibility
    among televisions, video cassette recorders, and cable systems can
    be assured with narrow technical standards that mandate a minimum
    degree of common design and operation" authorize or require us to
    designate a "simple" television receiver as "cable ready?"[^47] More
    generally, how does this Congressional finding and also Section
    624A(c)(2)(D) (the instruction to ensure that compatibility
    regulations "do not affect features, functions, protocols, and other
    product and service options" other than certain specified functions
    of television receivers or video cassette recorders) affect our
    authority to prescribe compatibility requirements in general and to
    require 1394 connectors on "cable ready" sets in particular?[^48] We
    also seek comment on whether there is an alternative designation for
    a digital television receiver without a 1394 connector but with
    basic cable functionality that would be informative and useful to
    consumers and acceptable to both the cable and consumer electronics
    industries.

19. We note that one of the OpenCable specifications, "OpenCable POD
    Copy Protection System," IS-POD-CP-INT01-000107, addresses copy
    protection. The focus of our inquiry is on hardware and
    compatibility standards generally, and we seek comment on the
    hardware implications of copy protection. In particular, is there
    any reason to believe that any unresolved copy protection licensing
    or other copy protection issues create uncertainty with respect to
    the physical configuration of POD security modules or host devices?
    In other words, is it possible that POD modules and host devices
    built based on information now available would be unable to support
    the copy protection technology or protocols now under discussion?
    Commenters should also address the scope of our jurisdiction in this
    area.

20. Additionally, it appears that any firm wishing to manufacture
    digital navigation devices, including television receivers, designed
    to interoperate with digital cable would need a license from
    OpenCable to utilize the POD intellectual property. Because our
    navigation devices rules do place some limits on the licensing terms
    that MVPDs can impose on manufacturers of navigation devices, we
    seek comment on whether there are any unresolved POD technology
    licensing issues related to copy protection.[^49] A recent *ex
    parte* presentation by Circuit City Stores raises questions in this
    area.[^50] Circuit City asserts that the draft CableLabs license for
    utilization of "DFAST" scrambling technology in POD modules imposes
    certain obligations on the competitive host device
    ([e.g.]{.underline}, a consumer television receiver or set-top box
    purchased at retail) that should be imposed only on the POD module
    itself. Moreover, Circuit City argues, the license imposes certain
    obligations relating to copy protection and control. In Circuit
    City's view, 47 C.F.R. §1204(c) prohibits licensors from imposing
    requirements unrelated to protection against threats to system
    security and conditional access. Circuit City appears to consider
    copy control and protection unrelated to system security and
    conditional access. CableLabs has filed a response to the Circuit
    City submission,[^51] which states that the draft license in
    question is an "evaluation license" that allows prospective
    manufacturers access to DFAST technology for developmental purposes,
    that the July 1, 2000 Commission deadline for cable operator
    provision of POD modules makes it important that the development
    process proceed even before finalizing the terms of a license for
    commercial [production]{.underline} of POD equipment, and that
    CableLabs is consulting with interested parties on revision of the
    draft license. Substantively, CableLabs asserts that, in general,
    the terms of the draft license "address encryption technology by
    which cable operators will be able to prevent access to programming
    by anyone other than legitimate paying customers"[^52] and that
    these terms are consistent with relevant Commission rules. We seek
    comment on these issues and on the appropriate regulatory action, if
    any, with respect to copy protection technology licensing.

21. Based on industry representations to date, we believe that labeling
    and copy protection are the only significant outstanding
    compatibility issues.[^53] If there are other important
    compatibility issues that have not been reported to the Commission,
    we invite comment on those issues now. We are hopeful that
    interested parties will submit ample documentation on outstanding
    cable compatibility issues that will allow us to formally adopt
    regulations that will serve the public interest.[^54] Any decisions
    made regarding compatibility should be consistent with efforts to
    implement a standard for closed captioning for digital
    receivers.[^55] We seek comment on how compatibility decisions could
    enhance implementation of closed captioning standards. We also seek
    comment on whether the compatibility choices made here will have an
    effect on compliance with Section 255 of the Communications Act,
    which requires that telecommunications equipment and services be
    accessible to persons with disabilities.[^56] For example, in
    certain instances, some services provided by set-top boxes may fall
    within the rules adopted to implement Section 255.[^57] We seek
    comment on how any cable compatibility solutions put forth can
    accommodate the need of equipment manufacturers and service
    providers to comply, where applicable, with the accessibility
    requirements of those rules.[^58]

22. Our purpose in this *Notice* is to finalize a process that the cable
    and consumer electronics industries have largely completed. In order
    to avoid consumer confusion, promote the transition to digital
    television, and comply with our statutory responsibility to provide
    for compatibility between cable and consumer electronics equipment,
    we wish to ensure the availability of relevant cable transmission
    standards and specifications for "cable ready" digital television
    receivers. Many years of joint discussions among industry parties
    have brought us close to our objective of compatibility standards.
    We have no wish to constrain or delay future innovations in service
    nor to blunt industry incentives to invest in new services. We do
    want to ensure that consumers will have a choice of services offered
    via cable (as well as other distribution media) and of equipment
    that will be compatible with cable systems. To that end we seek
    comment on the specific set of regulations and/or standards that we
    should adopt in order to complete the process that the cable and
    consumer electronics industries have begun and, indeed, almost
    completed themselves. We also seek comment on how our processes do
    and should interact with private sector standards approval
    procedures. We encourage commenters to concentrate on the limited
    number of issues on which industry has not yet reached overall
    consensus and to avoid reopening topics on which such consensus has
    been reached. Should the interested parties reach a consensus during
    the pendency of this rulemaking, thus eliminating extant
    compatibility problems, regulation by the Commission may well become
    unnecessary.

# Administrative Matters

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

23. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is attached to this
    order as Appendix A. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
    *see* 5 U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible economic impact on
    small entities of the proposals contained in this *Notice*.

> **B.** **Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis**

24. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
    collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
    information collections contained in this *Notice*, as required by
    the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and
    agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this
    *Notice*; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of
    this *Notice* in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a)
    whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
    accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
    the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
    and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
    on the respondents, including the use of automated collection
    techniques or other forms of information technology.

    **C. *Ex Parte* Rules**

25. This proceeding will be treated as a \"permit‑but‑disclose\"
    proceeding subject to the \"permit‑but‑disclose\" requirements under
    Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.1206(b), as revised. *Ex
    parte* presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with
    Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when
    presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise, are generally prohibited.
    Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that a
    memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the
    substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the
    subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of
    the views and arguments presented is generally required. *See* 47
    C.F.R. 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral
    and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).

**D. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments**

26. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
    1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419,
    interested parties may file comments in response to this *Notice* on
    or before May 24, 2000 and reply comments on or before June 8, 2000.
    Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment
    Filing System (\"ECFS\") or by filing paper copies.[^59] Comments
    filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
    Internet to \<http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html\>. Generally, only one
    copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket
    or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding,
    however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the
    comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
    caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
    include their full name, 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
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message, \"get form\<your e-mail address.\" A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply.

27. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If participants want each Commissioner to
    receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine
    copies must be filed. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding commenters must submit two
    additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
    All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie
    Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The
    Office of Plans and Policy contact for this proceeding is Jonathan
    Levy at (202) 418-2030, or at jlevy@fcc.gov.

28. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. Parties should submit diskettes to Jonathan
    Levy, Office of Plans and Policy, 445 12th Street N.W., Room 7-C362,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch
    diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and
    Microsoft Word, or compatible software. The diskette should be
    accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in \"read
    only\" mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the
    party\'s name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this
    case PP Docket No. 00-67), type of pleading (comments or reply
    comments), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file
    on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase
    \"Disk Copy - Not an Original.\" Each diskette should contain only
    one party\'s pleadings, referable in a single electronic file. In
    addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission\'s
    copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 1231 20th
    Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

29. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections are due May 24, 2000**.** Written comments
    must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
    the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before
    **\[60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.\]**
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be
    submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room
    1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the
    Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer,
    Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via
    the Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

30. *Ordering Clauses.* **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Sections 1,
    4(i) and (j), 336, and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 336, and 544a, **NOTICE
    IS HEREBY GIVEN** of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance
    with the proposals, discussions and statements of issues in this
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, and that **COMMENT IS SOUGHT**
    regarding such proposals, discussions and statements of issues.

31. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the Consumer Information Bureau,
    Reference Information Center, **SHALL SEND** shall send a copy of
    this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

**Federal Communications Commission**

Magalie Roman Salas

> Secretary
>
> **APPENDIX A**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^60] the
    Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
    entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*. Written public comments are requested on this
    IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
    be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on
    the rest of the *Notice.* The Commission will send a copy of the
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including this IRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5
    U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register. *See id*.

2.  *Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules:* This *Notice* is
    designed to help ensure that digital television receivers and cable
    television systems will function smoothly together and to promote
    the implementation of digital television ("DTV") service. In order
    to provide consumers with information about how digital television
    receivers will operate with cable television systems and thereby
    avoid consumer confusion, the *Notice* seeks comment on labeling of
    digital television receivers. In order to encourage the provision of
    valuable digital content and to ensure that copy protection
    technology licensing issues do not stand in the way of designing DTV
    receivers that operate with cable television systems, the *Notice*
    seeks comment on some outstanding copy protection technology
    licensing issues as well.

3.  *Legal Basis:* Authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained
    in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 336, and 624A of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 336, and 544a.

4.  *Description and Estimate of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
    Rules Will Apply:* The RFA directs agencies to provide a description
    of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
    that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^61] The
    Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having
    the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small business concern" under section 3 of the
    Small Business Act.[^62] A small business concern is one which: (1)
    is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
    field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the SBA.[^63]

5.  Rules adopted in this proceeding could apply to manufacturers of DTV
    equipment, including television receivers, set-top boxes and "point
    of deployment" modules. Distributors of this equipment, including
    retailers of consumer electronics equipment and, in the case of
    "point of deployment" modules, cable operators, would also be
    affected. Labeling rules would require all manufacturers, small and
    large, to adhere to certain terminology in the descriptive labels
    that they attach to the receivers that they produce. Regulations
    relating to copy protection licensing technology could affect the
    terms and conditions under which manufacturers, small and large,
    acquire copy protection technology licenses. However, with or
    without Commission regulations, all those entities would need a
    license for proprietary technology that they utilize. Cable
    operators will also be affected by any new requirements to offer
    supplementary equipment to subscribers to enable them to use special
    features of their DTV receivers. This proceeding seeks comment on
    whether the burden, if any, of compliance with rules adopted
    pursuant to this *Notice* could be mitigated for small entities.

6.  *Cable Systems:* SBA has developed a definition of small entity for
    cable and other pay television services, which includes all such
    companies generating less than \$11 million in revenue annually.
    This definition includes cable systems operators, closed circuit
    television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint
    distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and
    subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau,
    there were 1,323 such cable and other pay television services
    generating less than \$11 million in revenue that were in operation
    for at least one year at the end of 1992.[^64]

7.  The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable
    system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the
    Commission\'s rules, a \"small cable company,\" is one serving fewer
    than 400,000 subscribers nationwide*.*[^65] Based on our most recent
    information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that
    qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995.[^66]
    Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over
    400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in
    transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable
    operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439
    small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the
    decisions and rules proposed in this Notice.

8.  The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable
    system operator, which is \"a cable operator that, directly or
    through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000.\"[^67] The Commission has determined that
    there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we
    found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall
    be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined
    with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not
    exceed \$250 million in the aggregate.[^68] Based on available data,
    we find that the number of cable operators serving 617,000
    subscribers or less totals 1,450.[^69] Although it seems certain
    that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with
    entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250,000,000, we are
    unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
    cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators
    under the definition in the Communications Act.

9.  *Small Manufacturers*: The SBA has developed definitions of small
    entity for manufacturers of household audio and video equipment
    (SIC 3651) and for radio and television broadcasting and
    communications equipment (SIC 3663). In each case, the definition
    includes all such companies employing 750 or fewer employees.

10. *Electronic Equipment Manufacturers*: The Commission has not
    developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers
    of electronic equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA
    definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and
    Communications Equipment.[^70] According to the SBA\'s regulations,
    a TV equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in
    order to qualify as a small business concern.[^71] Census Bureau
    data indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio
    and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that
    778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be
    classified as small entities.[^72] The Census Bureau category is
    very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of
    these firms are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment or
    how many are independently owned and operated. We conclude that
    there are approximately 778 small manufacturers of radio and
    television equipment.

11. *Electronic Household/Consumer Equipment*: The Commission has not
    developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers
    of electronic equipment used by consumers, as compared to industrial
    use by television licensees and related businesses. Therefore, we
    will utilize the SBA definition applicable to manufacturers of
    Household Audio and Visual Equipment. According to the SBA\'s
    regulations, a household audio and visual equipment manufacturer
    must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
    business concern.[^73] Census Bureau data indicates that there are
    410 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting
    and communications equipment, and that 386 of these firms have fewer
    than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities.[^74]
    The remaining 24 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are
    unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 750 employees
    and therefore, also qualify as small entities under the SBA
    definition. Furthermore, the Census Bureau category is very broad,
    and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms
    are exclusive manufacturers of television equipment for consumers or
    how many are independently owned and operated. We conclude that
    there are approximately 386 small manufacturers of television
    equipment for consumer/household use.

12. *Computer Manufacturers*: The Commission has not developed a
    definition of small entities applicable to computer manufacturers.
    Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of Electronic
    Computers. According to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer
    must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
    entity.[^75] Census Bureau data indicates that there are 716 firms
    that manufacture electronic computers and of those, 659 have fewer
    than 500 employees and qualify as small entities.[^76] The remaining
    57 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to
    determine how many of those have fewer than 1,000 employees and
    therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    We conclude that there are approximately 659 small computer
    manufacturers.

13. *Small Retailers*: The Commission has not developed a definition of
    small entities applicable to retail sellers of navigation devices.
    Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition. The 1992 Bureau of
    the Census data indicate: there were 9,663 U.S. firms classified as
    Radio, Television, and Consumer Electronic Stores (SIC 5731), and
    that 9,385 of these firms had \$4.999 million or less in annual
    receipts and 9,473 of these firms had \$7.499 million or less in
    annual receipts.[^77] Consequently, we tentatively conclude that
    there are approximately 9,663 such small retailers that may be
    affected by the decisions and rules proposed in this *Notice*.

14. *Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements:* The
    proposed actions may require manufacturers of DTV equipment to
    adhere to some labeling standards. Moreover, the proposed actions
    may affect the terms under which manufacturers acquire licenses to
    utilize certain copy protection technology in their products. We
    believe that the impact of any rules that might be adopted pursuant
    to this *Notice* would be minimal. We seek comment on this.

15. *Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered:* The RFA, *see* 5
    U.S.C. § 603, requires an agency to describe any significant
    alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed
    approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.

16. We believe that our proposals would have the positive result of
    providing consumers with clear information about the capabilities of
    DTV equipment and promote the implementation of DTV service. We
    believe that labeling requirements would have a minimal impact on
    manufacturers and retailers and that not applying requirements
    adapted to all manufacturers would defeat the basic purpose of the
    requirements. Given that manufacturers would need to license copy
    protection technology that they incorporate in their equipment
    regardless of our rules, the potential impact of any rules appears
    to be minimal.[^78] We do not believe that different treatment of
    small and large entities with respect to their technology licensing
    is warranted. Any supplementary equipment that cable operators might
    be required to offer to subscribers is likely to be standardized and
    manufactured in large enough quantities that the cost to small cable
    operators is unlikely to be substantial.[^79] Moreover, cable
    operators are entitled to recover from subscribers the cost of
    supplementary equipment offered. Should commenters disagree with any
    of our conclusions, we welcome comments suggesting ways in which any
    perceived burden upon small entities could be mitigated.

17. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
    Proposed Rules: None.

[^1]: *See* Letter from Robert Sachs, President and CEO, NCTA and Gary
    Shapiro, President and CEO, CEA to William Kennard, Chairman FCC
    (Feb. 22, 2000). The letter and its two appendices detail agreements
    on technical requirements for direct connection of digital
    television receivers to digital cable systems and on provision of
    tuning and program schedule information to support the navigation
    function, including on-screen program guides.

[^2]: We note that cable operators are required to pass through closed
    captions to consumers. Standards for closed captioning for digital
    receivers are the subject of a pending Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking. *See* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No.
    99-254. 64 FR 41897 (Aug. 2, 1999).

[^3]: 47 U.S.C.§ 544a.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 544A(b)(2)(A).

[^5]: *See* *Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television
    Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992*, First Report and
    Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1981(1994*) ("Equipment Compatibility First Report
    and Order*").

[^6]: ^?^*See* *Equipment Compatibility First Report and Order*, at
    2004.

[^7]: *Id*. at 2005.

[^8]: *Id*. at 2004-5.

[^9]: *See*, [e.g.]{.underline}, Letter from Decker Anstrom, President
    and CEO, National Cable Television Association and Gary Shapiro,
    President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association to William
    Kennard, Chairman FCC (Oct. 30, 1998). *See also* para. 12,
    *infra***.**

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 544A(d).

[^11]: *See* *Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television
    Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992*, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 8495 (1993).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. §544A(a)(4).

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. §544A(c)(2)(D).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. §544A(c)(1)(B).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. §549.

[^16]: H.R. Rep.No. 104-458, 104^th^ Cong., 2d Sess. (181) 1996.

[^17]: *See* *Navigation Devices* *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 14775 (1998). *See
    also* 47 C.F.R. §§76.1200-10.

[^18]: *See* National Cable Television Association et al., "Status
    Report" in CS Docket No. 97-80 (filed January 7, 2000). The POD
    interface is the interface between a host device such as a
    television receiver or set-top box and the separate POD security
    module that cable operators must make available by July 1, 2000,
    pursuant to the Commission's *Navigation Devices Order*. The cable
    industry specifications are being developed through CableLabs, whose
    membership includes cable television system operators serving over
    85 percent of United States cable subscribers. See
    http://www.cablelabs.com.

[^19]: *See Fifth Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-268, 12 FCC Rcd
    12809, 12844 (1997).

[^20]: *Id.*, at 12848-51. *See also* 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(14) for
    Congressional instructions on the transition added by Section 3003
    of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 11 Stat 251
    (1997).

[^21]: *Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast
    Stations*, CS Docket No. 98-120, 13 FCC Rcd 15092 (1998) ("*Must
    Carry Notice")*.

[^22]: 13 FCC Rcd 15103-110.

[^23]: *Id.* at 15106-09. We continue to believe that a competitive
    marketplace will spur innovation in set-top box features and
    functions, including compatibility with digital television
    receivers. To this end, we note that the Commission\'s navigation
    devices rules were enacted to ensure that such equipment, including
    set-top boxes, is available for retail purchase. Section 629 of the
    Act requires the Commission to \"assure the commercial
    availability\" of navigation devices. 47 U.S.C. §549. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§76.1200-10.

[^24]: A bus is a circuit or group of circuits that provide an
    electronic pathway between two or more central processing units or
    input/output devices.

[^25]: 13 FCC Rcd at 15108.

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id.* at 15109.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: *Equipment Compatibility First Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at
    2005.

[^31]: *Id.*

[^32]: In May 1999, the Commission\'s Office of Engineering and
    Technology, in cooperation with the Office of Plans and Policy,
    hosted a roundtable to discuss technical issues and progress toward
    the development of standards for compatibility between digital
    television services and consumer electronics equipment. *See
    Commission\'s Office of Engineering and Technology Announces
    Panelists and Topics for Roundtable on DTV Receiver Compatibility
    With Cable Television Service*, Public Notice (May 13, 1999). Since
    that time**,** NCTA**,** CEA, and FCC staff have held informal
    discussions on these issues. *See* Entertainment, Technology
    Industries Reply to Chairman Kennard\'s Request to Report by July 1
    on DTV Receiver Compatibility Timetables, Press Release (July 2,
    1999).

[^33]: *See* Letter from Robert Sachs, President and CEO, NCTA and Gary
    Shapiro, President and CEO, CEA to William Kennard, Chairman FCC
    (Feb. 22, 2000). *See also* Letter from Gary Shapiro, President and
    CEO, CEA to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC (Nov. 9, 1999), Letter
    from Robert Sachs, President and CEO, CEA to William Kennard,
    Chairman, FCC (Nov. 1, 1999).

[^34]: We are not wedded to the phrases "cable ready" or "cable
    compatible." Receivers with and without the 1394 connector will be
    capable of accessing different arrays of cable service. In practical
    terms, the issue is how to best indicate to consumers the capability
    of television receivers to operate with cable television systems. In
    ¶18, *infra*, we seek comment on a possible "alternative designation
    for a digital television receiver."

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: *See* *Equipment Compatibility First Report and Order*, at
    1981-82.

[^37]: Each television broadcaster is assigned 6 Mhz of capacity which
    corresponds to a specific channel on a television set.

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §76.630(c).

[^39]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§15.117(h), 15.118.

[^40]: *See* Letter from Robert Sachs, President and CEO, NCTA and Gary
    Shapiro, President and CEO, CEA to William Kennard, Chairman FCC
    (Feb. 22, 2000), Appendix 1 Technical Agreement Between CEA and
    NCTA.

[^41]: *Id.*, Appendix 2 Carriage of PSIP over Cable Plants. The
    agreement makes no mention of requirements on television receiving
    equipment. We assume that the consumer electronics industry has
    concluded that the receiver standards currently in place are
    adequate in the digital environment. *See* id.

[^42]: See E*quipment Compatibility First Report and Order,* at 1991.

[^43]: The basic service tier consists, at a minimum, of retransmitted
    local broadcast signals plus PEG channels. *See* 47 CFR 76.901(a).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §76.630(c) and ¶ 14, *supra*.

[^45]: OpenCable is an industry initiative aimed at developing a new
    generation of interoperable set-top boxes that will facilitate the
    provision of an expanded range of interactive services to cable
    customers. See http://www.opencable.com.

[^46]: *See, [e.g.]{.underline}*, "OpenCable POD Copy Protection
    System," IS-POD-CP-INT01-000107, at 2.

[^47]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §544a(a)(4).

[^48]: *See* 47 U.S.C. 544a(c) 2)(D). *See also* H.R. Rep.No. 104-458,
    104^th^ Cong., 2d Sess. (170-71) 1996.

[^49]: *See, [e.g.]{.underline},* 47 C.F.R. §§76.1202, 1204.

[^50]: *See* Letter from Robert S. Schwartz to Magalie R. Salas, Federal
    Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 2, 2000),
    in CS Docket No. 97-80.

[^51]: ***See*** Letter from Richard R. Green to Magalie R. Salas,
    Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 16,
    2000), in CS Docket No. 97-80.

[^52]: [Id.]{.underline}

[^53]: We note that this *Notice* only addresses cable transmissions.
    Nothing under consideration herein would change or affect industry
    standards for digital television signals transmitted over-the-air by
    television broadcast stations.\"

[^54]: The Commission's recent periodic review of the conversion to
    digital television also contains questions about cable compatibility
    and copy protection issues. *See* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
    MM Docket No. 00-39, (released March 8, 2000) at ¶¶9-10. Commenters
    may wish to incorporate their comments in that proceeding by
    reference into this proceeding.

[^55]: *See* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No. 99-254. 64
    FR 41897 (Aug. 2, 1999).

[^56]: 47 U.S.C. §255.

[^57]: *See* Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    in WT Docket No. 96-98, 64 FR 63235 (Nov. 19, 1999).

[^58]: *See* 47 C.F.R., Parts 6 and 7.

[^59]: *See* *In re* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings*, 13 FCC Rcd. 11322 (1998) (amending Parts 0 and 1 of
    the Commission's rules to allow electronic filing of comments and
    other pleadings).

[^60]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^61]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^62]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^63]: *Id*. § 632.

[^64]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1992 Economic Census, 1992 Census of
    Transportation, Communications and Utilities at Firm Size 1‑123.

[^65]: 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition
    based on its determinations that a small cable system operator is
    one with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *Implementation
    of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation*, Sixth Report
    and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393
    (1995).

[^66]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., *Cable TV Investor*, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^67]: 47 U.S.C. §543(m)(2).

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. §76.1403(b).

[^69]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., *Cable TV Investor*, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^70]: This category excludes establishments primarily engaged in the
    manufacturing of household audio and visual equipment which is
    categorized as SIC 3651. *See infra* for SIC 3651 data.

[^71]: 13 C.F.R. §121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

[^72]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC
    category 3663.

[^73]: 13 C.F.R. §121.201, (SIC) Code 3651.

[^74]: U.S. Small Business Administration 1995 Economic Census Industry
    and Enterprise Report, Table 3, SIC Code 3651, (Bureau of the Census
    data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration).

[^75]: 13 C.F.R. §121.201, (SIC) Code 3571.

[^76]: U.S. Small Business Administration 1995 Economic Census Industry
    and Enterprise Report, Table 3, SIC Code 3571, (Bureau of the Census
    data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration).

[^77]: U.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census Industry
    and Enterprise Report, Table 2D, SIC 7812, (Bureau of the Census
    data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration)(SBA 1992 Census Report). The Census data does not
    include a category for \$6.5 million therefore, we have reported the
    closest increment below and above the \$6.5 million threshold. There
    is a difference of 88 firms between the \$4.999 and \$7.499 million
    annual receipt categories. It is possible that these 88 firms could
    have annual receipts of \$6.5 million or less and therefore, would
    be classified as small businesses.

[^78]: *See Notice* at paras. 18-20.

[^79]: *Id.* at paras. 14, 17.