**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CS Docket No. 97-80          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Consolidated Requests for Waiver | ** |                              |
| of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the  |    |                              |
| Commission's Rules[^1]           | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| 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 multichannel video programming distributors listed in the
    Appendix to this Order ("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.[^2] The Petitioners have indicated that
    they operate all-digital systems or will transition to all-digital
    systems by February 17, 2009. All seek a waiver of the integration
    ban, which they argue is necessary in order to make the transition
    or to continue to provide the high-quality video and related digital
    services over their all-digital distribution networks.[^3] For the
    reasons stated below, we grant the Waiver Requests pursuant to
    Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules.[^4]

# 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.[^5]

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").[^6] 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."[^7] 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."[^8] Similarly, Congress also sought to avoid Commission
actions "which could have the effect of freezing or chilling the
development of new technologies and services."[^9] 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.[^10]

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").[^11]
    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"),[^12] 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.[^13] Then, in 2005,
    again at the urging of cable operators,[^14] the Commission further
    extended that date until July 1, 2007.[^15] 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."[^16] It further stated
    that "at the heart of a robust retail market for navigation devices
    is the reliance of cable operators on the same security technology
    and conditional access interface that consumer electronics
    manufacturers must rely on in developing competitive navigation
    devices."[^17] The Commission concluded that such common reliance
    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" and make it
    "far more likely that \[MVPDs\] will continue to support and take
    into account the need to support services that will work with
    independently supplied and purchased equipment."[^18]

4.  On January 10, 2007, the Media Bureau acted upon three requests for
    waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules.[^19] In
    each case, the Bureau found that waiver was not warranted for any of
    the parties pursuant to Section 629(c) because none of the parties
    demonstrated that waiver was necessary to assist in the development
    or introduction of a new or improved service.[^20] 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.[^21] 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, given its
    commitment to move to an all-digital network by 2008.[^22] On May 4,
    2007, the Media Bureau acted upon another three requests for waiver
    of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules.[^23] The Bureau
    conditionally granted waivers to Millennium Telecom, LLC d/b/a
    OneSource Communications[^24] and GCI Cable, Inc.[^25] similar to
    the waiver granted to BendBroadband.[^26]

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

### The City of San Bruno d/b/a San Bruno Municipal Cable

5.  The City of San Bruno d/b/a San Bruno Municipal Cable ("San Bruno")
    seeks waiver of the integration ban for the Motorola DCT-700 (the
    "DCT-700"), relief that San Bruno claims is necessary to meet its
    goal of transitioning to an all-digital network by February 17,
    2009.[^27] San Bruno requests a two-year industry-wide waiver, or in
    the alternative, at least a waiver for small companies deploying the
    DCT-700.[^28] In the interest of closing the digital divide, San
    Bruno wants to provide all cable television households in San Bruno
    two DCT-700 set-top boxes free of charge, a plan that hinges on the
    continued availability of the low-cost DCT-700.[^29] San Bruno has
    filed an affidavit stating that if it is granted a waiver of the
    integration ban, it commits to transition to an all-digital network
    by February 17, 2009 and to the other requirements set forth in the
    *BendBroadband Order*.[^30] San Bruno claims that grant of the
    Waiver Request is critical because low-end digital set-top boxes
    like the DCT-700 are vital to its plans to move to an all-digital
    network within two to three years.[^31]

6.  A number of parties filed in response to the Waiver Request, and San
    Bruno also filed a reply to these comments. The comments filed in
    response to the Waiver Request generally supported grant of a
    waiver. The American Cable Association ("ACA"), Motorola, Inc.
    ("Motorola") and Representative Tom Lantos of California fully
    support a waiver in this circumstance.[^32] ACA echoes San Bruno
    Cable's assertion that "Without a waiver for the DCT-700, the City
    of San Bruno will need to postpone is planned \[digital\] transition
    for years."[^33]

7.  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."[^34] 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."[^35]

8.  Congressman Tom Lantos points out that San Bruno Cable has "embarked
    on a noteworthy project to convert their cable system to an
    all-digital system and have taken the bold step of purchasing 20,000
    Motorola brand DCT-700 set-top boxes which will provide a low-cost
    alternative to the average cost of a standard set-top box."[^36]
    Representative Lantos asserts that granting San Bruno Cable's
    request would allow "the citizens there to have affordable digital
    television while not penalizing the local municipality for
    creatively addressing the challenge."[^37]

9.  The Consumer Electronics Association ("CEA") states that it is
    sympathetic to San Bruno 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."[^38] In reply, San Bruno Cable
    refutes the assertion that a waiver would undermine the objective of
    Congress. San Bruno Cable points out that CEA itself acknowledges
    that smaller cable operators like San Bruno Cable are at the mercy
    of the product decisions made by larger cable operators and
    entrenched vendors, and therefore, granting the Waiver Request "will
    have absolutely no adverse effect on the competitive market for
    navigation devices."[^39]

### Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd.

10. Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd. ("LCPR") seeks waiver of
    the integration ban that would allow LCPR to continue to place into
    service Motorola DCT-700s after July 1, 2007. LCPR gives several
    reasons for the waiver it requests. First, building on the rationale
    for the waivers we granted to BendBroadband, Millennium Telecom, LLC
    d/b/a OneSource Communications ("Millennium"), and GCI Cable, Inc
    ("GCI"), LCPR states that it has already completed the migration to
    an all-digital network.[^40] It has, in other words, achieved the
    goal towards which BendBroadband, Millennium, and GCI are still
    working. In order to complete its migration to an all-digital
    network, LCPR deployed Motorola DCT-700 boxes to its subscribers.
    LCPR wishes to continue to do so after July 1 of this year, when the
    ban on the further distribution of integrated boxes takes effect.
    Potential subscribers to LCPR's service who have analog receivers
    will need a set-top box to convert LCPR's digital content into
    signals that can be displayed on their analog screens.[^41] LCPR
    claims that the only two boxes that it will be able to use are
    Motorola's integrated DCT-700 and its non-integrated DCH-100. The
    DCT-700 costs \$79. The DCH-100 will cost nearly three times
    more.[^42] LCPR states that with the money it can save if a waiver
    permits its continued distribution of the DCT-700, it plans to offer
    additional High Definition ("HD") and Video-on-Demand ("VOD")
    programming, higher Internet access speeds, and advanced
    telecommunications capabilities.[^43] LCPR reasons that if the
    Commission grants waivers to encourage BendBroadband, Millennium,
    and GCI to complete their transitions to all-digital networks, it
    should grant LCPR a waiver for having already completed its own
    transition, and to support and sustain it in surpassing that
    goal.[^44]

11. LCPR also argues for its waiver on the grounds that its service
    areas -- small and rural communities in Puerto Rico -- have low
    population density,[^45] weak economic conditions,[^46] and low
    subscription to cable service.[^47] These factors, LCPR claims, make
    impractical the use of boxes three times more costly than the
    DCT-700 because the costs will not be accepted by its potential
    subscribers.[^48] LCPR also claims that the Commission, when it
    adopted Section 76.1204(a)(1), did not consider conditions in Puerto
    Rico;[^49] that CableCARD-based devices are not generally available
    in retail and other outlets in Puerto Rico;[^50] and that LCPR's
    subscriber base is so small that waiving the integration ban for it
    will not impair the achievement of the ban's national goals.[^51]

12. LCPR's Request was placed on public notice on February 27,
    2007.[^52] Four parties filed responsive comments. ACA supports
    LCPR's Request, emphasizing the company's completed transition to an
    all-digital network despite the weak economic conditions in its
    service areas.[^53] Motorola also supports LCPR, touting the
    importance of the DCT-700 to the digital transitions of LCPR and
    other small cable operators.[^54] The Telecommunications Regulatory
    Board of Puerto Rico echoes LCPR's emphasis on the benefits of the
    DCT-700 given the economic conditions of Puerto Rico.[^55] Only CEA
    opposes the Request. CEA argues that the fundamental problem faced
    by LCPR, namely the lack of a low-cost set-top box that complies
    with Section 76.1204(a)(1)'s integration ban, will be solved not by
    waivers of the ban, but by its prompt nationwide effectiveness.[^56]
    LCPR replies that CEA's argument, whatever its general intellectual
    validity, ignores actual conditions in Puerto Rico.[^57] LCPR also
    produced a statement supporting its Request by the Honorable Luis G.
    Fortuño, Member of Congress for Puerto Rico.[^58]

### The Iowa Network Services Providers

13. A subset of Petitioners ("INS Providers") filed requests for waiver
    of the integration ban to allow them to use the conditional access
    technology that is or will be incorporated into their cable set-top
    boxes.[^59] The INS Providers are a group of small MVPDs in Iowa who
    receive their programming through a central distribution network
    connected to a central headend operated by Iowa Network Services and
    offer (or intend to offer) video service over all-digital copper and
    fiber optic based systems. The INS Providers state that, as small
    rural providers, they "do not have the market power or resources to
    influence manufacturer timetables to develop conditional access
    solutions that comply with the FCC's integration ban."[^60] They
    state that they have "diligently made inquiries with \[their\]
    middleware provider\[s\] to determine when an integration-ban
    compliant solution will be available," but that the "providers have
    not committed to making compliant devices available before the
    effective date of the integration ban."[^61] The INS Providers argue
    that a waiver is justified "because a conditional access solution
    that provides for common reliance is not available."[^62] They state
    that, because they already operate all-digital systems, absent a
    waiver they will need to cease or will be unable to commence video
    programming until a compliant solution is found.

14. Motorola fully supports the waivers, while CEA opposes them, "unless
    found to be truly *de minimis*."[^63] Many of the INS Providers
    filed a joint reply to the Comments. Motorola states that special
    circumstances support grant of the waiver, including the fact the
    DSL-based video solution is a first-generation delivery system that
    represents only a small percentage of the MVPD marketplace, and
    because such "solutions were not designed to support third-party
    hardware configurations, nor are there any plans to build such
    capabilities into legacy equipment."[^64] CEA argues that the
    conditional access technology at issue does not comply with
    Commission rules, and that the INS Providers have provided no
    justification "that has ever been recognized by the Commission" for
    a permanent waiver on the requirement of common reliance.[^65] CEA
    further states that the INS Providers do not assert that the
    navigation devices "presently support CableCARDS for competitive
    devices, or that they will or can do so in the future, based on
    their apparently exclusive reliance on a "middleware" system as
    described in their Petitions."[^66] CEA further contends that the
    INS Providers are apparently asking to be permanently excused from
    providing separate security modules according to a nationally
    \[recognized\] standard security interface."[^67] CEA thus argues
    that grant of the waiver would "completely undermine the policy
    objective of Section 76.1204(a)(1), an objective declared by
    Congress."[^68] CEA maintains that, since the INS Providers already
    run all-digital systems, grant of the waiver is not necessary for
    the development or introduction of new services.[^69] It states that
    the small size of the markets in question makes portability of
    navigation devices and common reliance more important to opening
    competition.

15. The INS Providers reply that they are not requesting a permanent
    waiver from compliance with the Commission's rules, and that the
    Commission has "recognized that small rural video operators, by
    virtue of their unique circumstances, face special difficulties in
    complying with the July 1, 2007 deadline for separate
    security."[^70] The INS Providers maintain that, in contrast to
    CEA's assertions, they are not required under Section 76.640 of the
    Commission's rules "to provide and support the operation of
    CableCARDS since their systems rely on an all-digital video
    distribution network, and do not use QAM modulation for transporting
    programs and services from its headend to receiving devices.[^71]
    The INS Providers further state that "\[t\]he Commission has already
    recognized that video operators may comply with the integration ban
    by employing security solutions other than CableCARDS, such as
    downloadable access solutions."[^72] They reiterate that, in the
    absence of a waiver, they will be forced "to deny rural subscribers
    access to not only advanced all-digital video and related services,
    but to the basic features of its video system, thereby depriving
    customers from primary sources of news, entertainment, and advanced
    services that are readily available to their urban
    counterparts."[^73] They argue that the number of customers affected
    by grant of the waiver would be small, and that failure to grant the
    waiver "would in effect 'punish' the INS Providers for transitioning
    to an all-digital network."[^74]

### CTC Video Services, LLC

16. CTC Video Services, LLC ("CTC") seeks temporary waiver of the
    integration ban to allow it to continue to place into service four
    integrated digital cable set-top boxes after July 1, 2007.[^75] CTC
    argues that a waiver will ensure its "rapid and efficient
    introduction of competitive video programming and advanced broadband
    service."[^76] CTC also states that a waiver would serve the public
    interest by speeding the deployment of its competitive video
    services.[^77] CTC argues that if it is denied a waiver, as a new
    entrant into the market it will have to endure significant start-up
    costs which would delay the introduction of its competitive video
    programming service.[^78] According to CTC, this would leave the
    company with two options: providing services at lower levels than
    its customers demand or paying significantly higher consumer
    premises equipment costs than its competitor.[^79]

17. Three parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request. CTC
    also filed a reply to these comments. Motorola and the United States
    Telecom Association ("USTA") strongly support grant of the waiver.
    Motorola emphasizes the higher costs associated with the CableCARD,
    and argues that these costs justify a waiver.[^80] The USTA states
    that grant of the waiver request is warranted because CTC's platform
    will bring advanced services to its market, resulting in the
    presence of the first terrestrial video MVPD competition within the
    vast majority of its territory.[^81] The USTA also emphasizes the
    sharp cost increase, saying that even if compliant set-top boxes
    were available to CTC, the additional costs of deploying them would
    have a significant negative impact on CTC's build out
    capabilities.[^82]

18. CEA believes that a grant of the waiver is not warranted because CTC
    seeks the waiver for all classes of set-top boxes, not just the
    limited function boxes.[^83] Further, CEA asserts that the Waiver
    Request is vague as to CTC's intention after the proposed waiver
    period, specifically whether CTC would move to CableCARD-reliant
    products.[^84]

19. In reply, CTC states that it "maintains an inventory and stands
    ready to deploy and bill for use of CableCARDS."[^85] Further, it
    affirms that if any of its customers purchase devices that rely on
    current or future CableCARD standards, then CTC will meet those
    customer needs.[^86] Finally, CTC emphasizes that "the immediate
    deployment of compliant boxes using available technologies would
    place an unreasonable economic burden on a new market entrant, and
    lock CTC into a technology that may not be its best long-term
    solution."[^87]

### CenturyTel, Inc.

20. CenturyTel, Inc. ("CenturyTel") seeks waiver of the integration ban
    to allow it to continue to place into service low-cost,
    limited-function Motorola DSR 470 and refurbished DCT 2000
    integrated set-top boxes ("Subject Boxes") after July 1, 2007 and
    until February 17, 2009. CenturyTel argues that the public interest
    benefits associated with its commitment to transition to an
    all-digital network by February 17, 2009, are sufficient to justify
    a waiver, and argues that the Media Bureau made a similar finding in
    the *BendBroadband Order*.[^88] CenturyTel maintains that a waiver
    of the integrated set-top box ban would free up the capital
    necessary to make the expenditures needed to transition to a digital
    network capable of supporting multi-channel video programming and
    other advanced services.[^89] According to CenturyTel, "low-cost
    set-top boxes are essential to help transition cost-sensitive
    customers to a digital platform, and particularly in rural areas, to
    persuade existing digital customers to obtain set-top boxes for all
    of their televisions."[^90]

21. CenturyTel asserts that the significant expenditures that would be
    required as a result of a denial of its waiver request would result
    in considerable cost increases for the consumer, which in turn would
    undermine CenturyTel's ability to transition its customers to
    digital cable.[^91] Further, CenturyTel states that its cable
    systems pertinent to this waiver request are small systems in rural
    communities which are exactly the types of systems the Commission
    has recognized would have difficulty in complying with the July 1,
    2007 deadline.[^92] In addition, CenturyTel contends that the Waiver
    Request is limited in scope and time in that it only covers two
    low-capability set-top box models for use in seven small, rural
    systems, and will only be needed until the company's digital
    transition in February 2009.[^93] CenturyTel requests that if the
    Waiver Request is not granted, the Bureau should defer enforcement
    of the integration ban until such time as CenturyTel is able to
    purchase CableCARD compliant set-top boxes or DCAS downloadable
    security is available, whichever is sooner.[^94]

22. Three parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.
    CenturyTel also filed a reply to one of these comments. Motorola and
    USTA fully support grant of the waiver. USTA states that grant of
    the waiver request is warranted because CenturyTel is a "new entrant
    into the digital MVPD market providing cutting-edge digital services
    to consumers," and has committed to completing the upgrade by the
    February 2009 deadline.[^95] Motorola echoes CenturyTel's assertion
    that denial of its waiver would have "real-world negative effects"
    on its digital transition plans.[^96] Motorola asserts that failure
    to grant the Waiver Request would impose additional costs on
    consumers while at the same time derailing CenturyTel's plan to
    transition to digital which, if the waiver is granted, would
    "facilitate the recapture of analog spectrum for more HD channels,
    faster Internet access, and other video and non-video services
    consumers want and value, and enable these cable operators to
    compete more effectively against DBS and other all-digital
    platforms."[^97]

23. CEA believes that grant of the Waiver Request would be rewarding
    CenturyTel's "stockpiling of noncompliant devices" when it knew that
    the devices would soon be phased out.[^98] CEA further asserts that
    because CenturyTel did not include the word "necessary" in its
    request, it is not following the guidelines laid out in Section
    629(c) of the Telecommunications Act.[^99] Additionally, CEA states
    that the devices for which CenturyTel seeks a waiver have advanced
    features which are excluded under the 2005 *Deferral Order*.[^100]
    Finally, CEA claims that CenturyTel has "demonstrated no commitment
    to completing a digital transition in the near future."[^101]

24. In reply, CenturyTel states first that the CEA has simply adopted a
    blanket policy of opposing all requests for waivers of the
    integration ban, even when, as the instant case is, the request
    covers systems "of the kind for which waiver of the Integration Ban
    is most appropriate."[^102] CenturyTel further affirms that the
    CEA's Comments regarding CenturyTel's stockpiling of new,
    noncompliant devices are unfounded because neither of the Subject
    Boxes is currently manufactured and all of those devices that
    CenturyTel has in inventory are refurbished.[^103] Also, CenturyTel
    declares that the CEA inaccurately described the functionality of
    the Subject Boxes as neither device is capable of supporting the
    advanced capabilities the CEA suggests they support.[^104] Finally,
    CenturyTel states that contrary to what the CEA claimed, CenturyTel
    is in fact preparing its customers to transition to a digital
    platform by February 17, 2009.[^105]

### En-Touch Systems, Inc.

25. En-Touch Systems, Inc. ("En-Touch"), a cable overbuilder that
    directly competes with incumbent cable operators, seeks waiver of
    the integration ban for the Motorola DCT-700, relief that En-Touch
    claims is necessary to meet its goal of transitioning to an
    all-digital network by February 17, 2009.[^106] En-Touch asserts
    that the cost increase associated with deploying CableCARD-equipped
    set-top boxes "would prevent En-Touch from being able to migrate to
    all digital prior to the 2009 DTV transition."[^107] Finally,
    En-Touch argues that the public interest benefits associated with
    its commitment to transition to an all-digital network by February
    17, 2009 are sufficient to justify a waiver, and argues that the
    Media Bureau made a similar finding in the *BendBroadband
    Order*.[^108]

26. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request.
    Motorola supports a waiver in this circumstance, while CEA opposes
    such a waiver. 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."[^109]
    According to Motorola, the additional cost will be borne by
    consumers, which threatens to reduce consumer adoption of digital
    service and thereby threaten En-Touch's plan to transition to an
    all-digital network.[^110] CEA argues that grant of the Waiver
    Request will only serve to deny En-Touch subscribers the benefits of
    a competitive navigation device market. [^111] CEA also asserts that
    "\[f\]urthering the digital transition does not require sacrificing
    competition in navigation devices."[^112] Finally, CEA encourages
    the Bureau to deny the Waiver Request as a means to ensure the
    commercial availability of navigation devices at retail.[^113] In
    reply, En-Touch contends that CEA ignores En-Touch's argument that
    it has "demonstrated its satisfaction of the requirements of the
    *BendBroadband Order*,"[^114] and asserts that it will support the
    development of a commercial market for navigation devices by relying
    upon advanced capability, non integrated CableCARD devices to
    provide services to all subscriber that cannot be served utilizing
    the DCT-700.[^115]

### Qwest Communications International, Inc.

27. Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest") seeks waiver of
    the integration ban to allow it to continue to place into service
    integrated set-top boxes with its current video delivery
    systems.[^116] Qwest seeks waiver for the use of set-top boxes with
    both its very high-speed digital subscriber line ("VDSL")-based
    delivery system and its fiber-to-the-home broadband passive optical
    network ("FTTH-BPON").[^117] Qwest argues that the Commission must
    grant the Waiver Request because of "special circumstances" involved
    with their set-top boxes as well as the public interest.[^118]

28. Specifically, Qwest states that the VDSL-based delivery system is a
    breakthrough, first-generation delivery system that is very
    different from that used by traditional wire-based cable
    companies.[^119] And as such, it is now being surpassed by movement
    in the industry to digital subscriber line ("DSL")-based delivery
    architectures.[^120] As a result, neither Qwest's current set-top
    box vendor nor any other set-top box manufacturer currently makes or
    has plans to develop alternate set-top boxes for this system.[^121]
    As for the FTTH-BPON boxes, although there is an alternative set-top
    box currently available, Qwest argues that forcing it to provide
    such an alternative would create costs that would not only hinder
    the development and implementation of the next generation FTTH
    architecture, but also provide no benefit to the small number of
    customers currently using this architecture.[^122] Qwest further
    points out that it is planning on migrating away from the use of
    both of these types of boxes in the next few years.[^123]

29. In addition, Qwest states that waiver is warranted because it will
    serve the public interest through the "uninterrupted continued
    growth of wire-based competition in video services delivery, and the
    unhindered development and deployment of an improved video delivery
    platform."[^124] Finally, Qwest posits that granting waiver will
    further the Act's competitive goals and the public interest because
    Qwest offers a competitive wire-based alternative to incumbent cable
    operators.[^125]

30. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request; Qwest
    also filed a reply to these comments. Motorola fully supports
    Qwest's waiver request, echoing and confirming Qwest's assertion
    that the VDSL-based delivery system was "not designed to support
    third-party hardware configurations, nor are there any current plans
    to build such capabilities into legacy equipment."[^126] Motorola
    also agrees with Qwest on the issue of public interest, stating that
    a denial would limit Qwest's ability to expand their services to new
    customers and would "force the diversion of resources towards
    solutions for product lines that are being retired, rather than
    toward the development and deployment of next-generation solutions
    for these platforms."[^127]

31. On the other hand, CEA states that waivers are not necessary and
    would be inappropriate for various reasons. First, CEA claims that
    although Qwest has asserted that it will be moving within the next
    few years to a next-generation architecture, it has not said for
    sure whether the technology to which it intends to migrate will
    itself be non-integrated.[^128] Further, CEA points out that the
    only "special circumstance" surrounding the FTTH-BPON is that it
    would rather not incur the expense of compliance with the rule and
    that "\[r\]equesting a waiver solely to avoid the cost of compliance
    is tantamount to challenging the common reliance rule in its
    entirety."[^129] Finally, CEA maintains that the public interest
    actually favors denying the waivers as any benefit from Qwest's
    continued ability to deploy new security-integrated set-top boxes is
    outweighed by harm to the public interest in a robust, competitive
    market for navigation devices at retail."[^130]

32. In reply, Qwest argues that in accomplishing its migration to new
    delivery systems, it "fully intends to use set-top boxes with those
    new delivery systems that are compliant with the letter and the
    spirit of the integration ban if such boxes exist and enable a smart
    solution."[^131] And that the only reason Qwest has not definitively
    made this assertion is because the industry has only recently
    switched its efforts from developing set-top boxes that are designed
    for use with a quadrature amplitude modulation ("QAM") to developing
    standards enabling the interoperability of CE devices with Internet
    protocol television ("IPTV") networks that include DSL-based
    delivery structure.[^132] Further, Qwest states that more than one
    special circumstance surrounding these set-top boxes exists.[^133]
    Finally, Qwest also reemphasizes the fact that the public interest
    would be better served by granting these waivers because of the
    increased competition resulting in lower prices, improved customer
    service, and consumer choices.[^134]

### Verizon

33. Verizon seeks waiver based on its commitment to transition to an
    all-digital network by February 17, 2009 if it is granted waiver of
    the integration ban.[^135] Verizon contends that this transition
    "will provide strong, additional incentives for consumers to make
    the switch to digital equipment."[^136] Verizon also asserts that
    this transition will "free up bandwidth that can be used for
    additional digital programming, and in particular to increase
    Verizon's HD offering."[^137] In its Waiver Request, Verizon also
    argues that the Commission must grant the Waiver Request because
    Verizon's new FiOS TV video services are exactly the sort of
    competitive and innovative technology that Congress contemplated
    when it adopted the waiver provision in Section 629(c).[^138]
    Further, Verizon contends that denying the Waiver Request would
    hamper Verizon's deployment of the FiOS network, which, unlike
    existing cable systems, brings fiber-optic cable directly to
    customer premises and uses a Quadrature Amplitude
    Modulation/Internet Protocol ("QAM/IP") network to allow
    interactivity.[^139] Verizon claims that it is a new competitive
    entrant with a small market share that is developing a new
    technology and service, much like DBS when the Commission granted it
    a waiver of the separability requirements in 1998.[^140] Verizon
    also seeks implementation of a "truly interoperable downloadable
    conditional access system."[^141]

34. Motorola supports Verizon's waiver request, stating that Verizon is
    providing a new and innovative MVPD service, as contemplated in
    Section 629(c).[^142] Other parties disagree, arguing that Verizon
    is not providing a new and innovative service, and stating that FiOS
    is simply a substitute for a traditional cable service and should be
    afforded the same treatment as its competitors.[^143] Verizon, CEA
    claims, is purposely vague about the service and doesn't explain how
    the service differs from current cable service, since Verizon's
    IP-services are similar to cable's two-way services.[^144] As such,
    CEA claims Verizon has no different problems from any other
    operator, and argues that Verizon has not provided evidence of a
    single technical problem with CableCARD.[^145] NCTA claims that
    Verizon's limited use of IP technology is not an appropriate basis
    for a waiver, and that the Commission must treat all technologies
    equally, in order to avoid market-skewing results.[^146]

35. Verizon responds that its QAM/IP network utilizes the best of
    traditional cable technology and the innovation of IP technology,
    providing services that cable cannot, including interactive
    applications like FiOS widgets, which allows users to see real-time
    traffic and weather through their set-top box.[^147] Further,
    Verizon's fiber-to-the-premises ("FTTP") network and QAM/IP system
    present unique technological problems not applicable to incumbent
    cable operators.[^148] Motorola agrees, stating that applying
    existing CableCARD standards to Verizon's innovative QAM/IP network
    will deny consumers the full benefits of FiOS TV,[^149] and that it
    would be difficult, if not impossible, to create a unique
    integration ban solution for FiOS TV, as there are substantial
    additional costs, complexities and time exigencies because QAM/IP
    architecture is used.[^150] Motorola doubts that any manufacturer
    would elect to make the investment in a box that would only work for
    the limited number of FiOS subscribers.[^151]

36. NCTA suggests Verizon is not a new entrant due to its market
    capitalization and build-out plans.[^152] TiVo argues that Verizon
    will be able to enter the market regardless of whether the
    Commission grants the waiver request,[^153] and that a grant will
    not further Section 629's goals of commercial availability and
    increased competition in the navigation device market. TiVo argues
    that Verizon should not be rewarded for its conscious decision to
    ignore the integration ban,[^154] and that Verizon's claims that
    requiring compliance prior to a DCAS solution would lead to wasteful
    costs are unpersuasive, as such costs are simply what it necessary
    to comply with Commission rules.[^155] TiVo argues that because
    CableCARD-reliant devices must deal with those costs, Verizon should
    have to as well.[^156]

37. Verizon counters that the issue of whether it is a new entrant is
    separate from the issues of whether it is a large company and
    whether it is likely to succeed.[^157] Verizon claims the more
    important concern is whether Verizon is introducing competition into
    a marketplace that sorely needs it.[^158] Verizon asserts that its
    entry into video services is exactly the pro-competitive result
    Congress desired in creating the waiver provision in Section 629(c).
    Further, it argues that imposing a CableCARD requirement would deny
    consumers the full benefits of FiOS, as discussed above.

38. CEA claims Verizon incorrectly points to the FCC's forbearance for
    DBS as precedent for a waiver.[^159] CEA asserts that rather than
    creating a precedent, the Commission decided that, with respect to
    DBS, any rules that impose technical obligations on MVPD systems do
    not apply.[^160] TiVo argues that the Commission accepted the DBS
    providers as new entrants only after noting the market for DBS
    equipment was competitive and far different from the market for
    equipment for other MVPD services.[^161]

39. Verizon responds that Section 629 and the Commission's rules
    indicate any waiver will apply to service providers within a
    category, and Verizon cites the DBS waiver as an example.[^162]
    Verizon asserts the DBS providers were granted a waiver because they
    were new entrants, and that FiOS is analogous to the circumstances
    that led to the DBS waiver because: (1) FiOS will offer benefits of
    competition, similar to the DBS carriers; (2) the regulations harm
    Verizon as a new entrant and may force them to change their business
    model; and (3) Verizon just entered the video market and needs the
    waiver to continue to develop its video service while it has such a
    small market share.[^163]

40. NCTA argues that if waiver is granted, it should be granted to all
    providers, not simply Verizon.[^164] According to NCTA, if the
    Commission grants Verizon's Waiver Request, that waiver must apply
    to all cable operators, as Section 629(c) states that all waivers
    adopted are effective for all service providers.[^165]

41. Verizon and TiVo disagree with NCTA, and maintain the Commission
    should limit the applicability of any waiver it grants to those
    providers who use a QAM/IP system over FTTP architecture.[^166]
    While TiVo opposes the Waiver Request, it does agree that the
    Commission can logically limit any waiver to categories of
    providers.[^167] If the Commission grants Verizon's request, TiVo
    urges the Commission to clarify that the waiver applies to Verizon
    in its capacity as a new entrant and does not extend to all
    MSOs.[^168] Verizon further argues that it's unique technological
    platform is a category, and that NCTA's proposed reading of
    "category" in Section 629(c) would lead to an absurd result, is
    untenable when considered in context, and contradicts NCTA's past
    interpretations of the statute.[^169]

42. Many commenters contend that Verizon's Open DCAS proposal has merit
    but needs to be further developed.[^170] CEA and TiVo assert that
    since DCAS is not ready to be deployed widely or made available to
    competitive devices, Verizon's request is for an open-ended
    exemption rather than for a limited time.[^171] TiVo asserts the
    Commission cannot grant a waiver for an indiscriminate amount of
    time.[^172] Instead, argues TiVo, the Commission should end the
    delays and require that all MVPDs adhere to the July 1, 2007
    integration ban date.[^173]

43. Verizon counters that its request is properly limited to the time
    that it takes to harmonize the adoption of an appropriate DCAS
    system with the Commission's integration ban, but states that if the
    Commission believes a certain time period should be imposed, three
    years is a reasonable period of time.[^174]

### Puerto Rico Cable Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Choice Cable TV

44. Puerto Rico Cable Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Choice Cable TV ("Choice")
    seeks waiver of the integration ban that would allow Choice to
    continue to place into service all integrated set-top boxes after
    July 1, 2007. In the alternative, and at the very least, Choice
    seeks waiver for the DCT-700.[^175] Choice gives several reasons for
    the waiver it requests. First, building on the rationale for the
    waivers we granted to BendBroadband, Millennium, and GCI, Choice
    states that it has already completed the migration to an all-digital
    network.[^176] It has, in other words, achieved the goal towards
    which BendBroadband, Millennium, and GCI are still working. In order
    to complete its migration to an all-digital network, Choice deployed
    Motorola DCT-700 boxes to its subscribers. Choice wishes to continue
    to do so after July 1, 2007, when the ban on the further
    distribution of integrated boxes takes effect. Potential subscribers
    to Choice's service who have analog receivers will need a set-top
    box to convert Choice's digital content into signals that can be
    displayed on their analog screens.[^177] Choice claims that the
    primary two boxes that it will be able to use are Motorola's
    integrated DCT-700 and its non-integrated DCH-100. The DCT-700 costs
    \$79. The DCH-100 will cost nearly three times more.[^178] Choice
    states that without a waiver, it will not be able to offer high
    definition and personal video recording services to its
    customers.[^179] Choice reasons that if the Commission grants
    waivers to encourage BendBroadband, Millennium, and GCI to complete
    their transitions to all-digital networks, it should grant Choice a
    waiver for having already completed its own transition, and to
    support and sustain it in surpassing that goal.[^180]

45. Choice also argues for its waiver on the grounds that its service
    areas -- small and rural communities in Puerto Rico -- have weak
    economic conditions and low subscription to cable service.[^181]
    These factors, Choice claims, make impractical the use of boxes
    three times more costly than the DCT-700 because the costs will not
    be accepted by its existing and potential subscribers.[^182] Choice
    also claims that the Commission, when it adopted Section
    76.1204(a)(1), did not consider conditions in Puerto Rico,[^183] and
    that CableCARD-based devices are not generally available in retail
    and other outlets in Puerto Rico.[^184]

46. Two parties submitted comments on Choice's Waiver Request, one in
    support and one in opposition. Motorola strongly supports Choice's
    request and echoes Choice's argument that continued deployment of
    the low-cost DCT-700 is necessary for Choice "to continue to attract
    new customers to its service and to serve existing customers who
    need additional or replacement set-top boxes."[^185] The effect is
    especially strong, Motorola asserts, in the poor, rural areas of
    Puerto Rico served by Choice.[^186]

47. In opposing grant of the waiver request, the CEA posits that
    Congress' purpose for the integration ban will not be forwarded by
    further delays of the ban's implementation.[^187] The CEA asserts
    that Choice has stated no grounds for waiver under Section
    629(c).[^188] The CEA argues that grant of a waiver under Sections
    1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules "would serve to ratify the
    nullification of FCC regulations by larger MSOs and their
    vendors,"[^189] but if waiver is granted, it should be done with
    "forward-looking obligations to assure compliance and the
    achievement of a national competitive market in '2-way' navigation
    devices rather than perpetual future renewal."[^190]

### Guiness Communications Inc. d/b/a Delta Cable Vision

48. Guiness Communications Inc. d/b/a Delta ("Delta")[^191] 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.[^192] Delta argues that it should be afforded the same
    conditional relief that the Commission granted to BendBroadband in
    January 2007.[^193] Delta states that Motorola's least expensive
    CableCARD equipped device costs approximately three times as much as
    the integrated DCT-700[^194] and that "because a transition to
    all-digital requires a significant number of new set-top boxes, this
    enormous cost increase would prevent Delta Cable from being able to
    migrate to all digital prior to the 2009 DTV transition."[^195]

49. If its Waiver Request is granted, however, Delta states that "it
    will convert to an all-digital network prior to February 17, 2009"
    and "would reclaim the spectrum now used for analog channels to
    offer increased HD and VOD programming, higher Internet access
    speeds, competitive telephone services, and other advanced
    telecommunications capabilities."[^196]

50. Two parties filed comments in response to the Waiver Request. Delta
    also filed a reply to these comments. Motorola strongly supports
    grant of the waiver. Motorola emphasizes the higher costs associated
    with the CableCARD and new set-top boxes, and argues that these
    costs justify a waiver because without one, Delta will not be able
    to complete its transition to an all-digital network by February 17,
    2009.[^197] CEA believes that a grant of the waiver would not give
    Delta any additional influence over "monopoly vendors" and asks the
    Commission to "bear in mind that too many or too liberal exceptions
    would serve to ratify the nullification of FCC regulations by larger
    MSOs and their vendors.[^198] In reply, Delta states that the CEA's
    concern is unfounded because Delta serves only 750 customers in the
    United States and grant of this Waiver Request "would not create any
    new precedent, but instead would be a ratification of the
    Commission's existing precedent . . . ."[^199]

### Volcano Vision, Inc.

51. Volcano Vision, Inc. ("Volcano Vision") 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.[^200]
    Volcano Vision asserts that grant of this request will allow it to
    convert to an all-digital network by early 2008.[^201] The company
    states that it already has enough set-top boxes in inventory to
    ensure that each of its customers will be able to view digital cable
    programming on analog television sets following its migration to an
    all-digital network.[^202] Further, Volcano Vision has already
    provided notification to all of its analog customers of its plans to
    go all-digital.[^203] Accordingly, Volcano Vision states that it has
    met all of the conditions set forth in the BendBroadband
    Order.[^204] Finally, Volcano Vision argues that grant of its Waiver
    Request is in the public interest because the company's migration to
    an all-digital network "will allow it to reclaim a considerable
    amount of spectrum within a defined timeframe, enabling it to
    provide consumers with advanced telecommunication
    capabilities."[^205]

52. Two parties filed comments in response to Volcano Vision's Waiver
    Request. Motorola fully supports grant of the waiver, arguing that
    it is justified not only because of the detriment of the added costs
    that a denial would impose on a small cable operator like Volcano
    Vision,[^206] but also based on Bureau precedent in the *GCI*
    *Order* and the *Millennium Order*.[^207] CEA believes that a grant
    of the waiver is not justified because it doesn't believe that
    Volcano Vision makes sufficient mention of CableCARDs or a
    commitment to comply with "*other* Commission regulations that
    require the provision of CableCARDs and the support on the network
    of CableCARD-reliant navigation devices.[^208] In reply, Volcano
    Vision maintains that the set-top boxes for which it seeks a waiver
    are integral to its commitment to migrate to an all-digital network
    by early 2008.[^209] Also, Volcano Vision claims that without a
    waiver it would have to strand approximately \$500,000 worth of
    set-top boxes which would create a financial hardship for a company
    of its size.[^210]

### The Rural ATM Digital Providers Group and the IPTV Operators Group

53. Pursuant to Sections 629(a) and 629(c) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended[^211] and sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the
    Commission's rules,[^212] the members of the Rural ATM Digital Video
    Providers Group and the IPTV Operators Group ("ATM and IPTV
    Providers Group")[^213] seek permanent waiver of the Commission's
    open interface rule (*i.e.*, these providers seek waiver so that
    they may offer a separated security function that does not use a
    commonly used interface, and does not conform to technical standards
    promulgated by a national standards organization).[^214] Certain ATM
    and IPTV Providers Group's members utilize the Motorola Next Level
    video platform, while others use Internet Protocol Television, to
    provide video services to their subscribers in small and rural
    markets.[^215] Using these technologies, telephone companies were
    able to enter the video market by allowing them "to take advantage
    of existing telecommunications infrastructure, including the core
    fiber optic network and twisted copper pairs to subscriber premises,
    to deliver broadband services like video and high-speed internet."
    [^216] Although the ATM and IPTV Providers Group claims that their
    systems contain non-integrated conditional access functions, they
    also claim that their systems utilize proprietary network interfaces
    that do not -- and will not be able to -- comply with Section
    76.1204(b) by the July 1 deadline.[^217] The ATM and IPTV Providers
    Group asserts that without waiver, its customers would be prohibited
    from adding or changing any service that would require a new set-top
    box.[^218] In addition, compliance with the rule would mean
    abandonment of the ATM and IPTV systems at a cost so great it "could
    force \[The ATM and IPTV Providers Group's members\] to abandon the
    video market."[^219] The ATM and IPTV Providers Group claims that
    waiver will not undermine the policy objectives of the open
    interface requirement and indeed, denying their waiver requests
    would undermine "the Act's overall objective of deploying advanced
    telecommunications and information technologies and services to all
    Americans" by denying Rural ATM's customers of competitive cable or
    even cable service altogether.[^220] The ATM and IPTV Providers
    Group emphasizes that their members' networks are already
    all-digital and therefore should receive a waiver consistent with
    the *Cablevision Order* and the *BendBroadband Order*.[^221] The ATM
    and IPTV Providers Group also emphasizes that its members serve a
    very small percentage of the nation's cable subscribers, and grant
    of their Waiver Requests would have a negligible effect on the
    nationwide market for navigation devices.[^222]

### Cablevision of Marion County

54. Cablevision of Marion County, LLC ("CMC") seeks waiver of the
    integration ban for four Motorola set-top boxes,[^223] relief that
    CMC claims is necessary to meet its goal of transitioning to an
    all-digital network by February 17, 2009.[^224] CMC claims that
    grant of its waiver request will allow it to "increase its HD and
    VOD capacity, and to develop new and improved and other digital
    services."[^225] CMC claims that this relief would be consistent
    with the relief afforded BendBroadband, GCI, and Millennium.[^226]

# DISCUSSION

55. The Petitioners submitted their Waiver Requests variously under
    Section 629(c) of the Act,[^227] Section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996,[^228] and the general waiver
    provisions found in Sections 1.3[^229] and 76.7[^230] of the
    Commission's rules. Accordingly, we analyze the Waiver Requests
    pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c)[^231]
    as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3
    and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. As discussed below, we find that
    we cannot grant any of the Waiver Requests under Section 629(c). At
    the same time, given each Petitioner's demonstration that it has
    already made such a transition, or stated commitment to move to an
    all-digital network by February 17, 2009 if it is able to continue
    to deploy certain low-end integrated set-top boxes after July 1,
    2007, we conclude that limited grants of the Waiver Requests under
    Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules is justified in
    order to enable the Petitioners to continue to provide all-digital
    services to their subscribers, or to complete their migrations to
    all-digital networks by February 17, 2009. We therefore
    conditionally grant the Waiver Requests. The details of that
    conditional grant are set forth below.

## Section 629(c) of the Act

56. 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.[^232]

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. Section 629(a) thus charges the Commission with adopting
regulations that further that goal. At the same time, however, Congress
intended "that the Commission avoid actions which could have the effect
of freezing or chilling the development of new technologies and
services."[^233] Accordingly, waivers of those regulations are granted
when doing so "is necessary to assist the development or introduction of
a new or improved" service, such as, for example, a nascent MVPD
offering from a new competitor.[^234]

57. Certain Petitioners argue that Waiver Request grants are necessary
    to assist in the development of new and improved digital cable
    services, such as increased HD and VOD programming, increased
    broadband speed and capacity, and other digital services, as well as
    to ease reduce the burdens of the over-the-air transition to
    all-digital broadcasting.[^235] As we stated in the *January 10
    Orders*, we do not find that such arguments generally justify a
    waiver under Section 629(c) of the Act.[^236] 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).[^237]

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

58. In the *BendBroadband Order*, the Bureau "recognize\[d\] that the
    ability to rapidly migrate to an all-digital network would produce
    clear, non-speculative public benefits," particularly when
    considered in the context of the Commission's goal of promoting the
    broadcast television digital transition.[^238] The Bureau
    conditionally granted BendBroadband's waiver request pursuant to
    Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules,[^239] subject to
    BendBroadband's submission of a sworn declaration stating that it
    would take specific steps, as outlined in the *BendBroadband Order*,
    to demonstrate its commitment to an all-digital network within its
    stated timeframe. More recently, the Bureau conditionally granted
    similar waivers to GCI and Millennium.[^240]

59. We find that, as limited below, the Waiver Requests now before us
    likewise present non-speculative public interest benefits that
    justify grant.[^241] The Petitioners currently operate, or will
    operate before February 17, 2009, all-digital video distribution
    networks comparable to the all-digital networks to which
    BendBroadband, GCI, and Millennium have committed to migrate. As
    many of the Petitioners argue, "\[s\]trict enforcement of the rule,
    moreover, would in effect 'punish' \[the Petitioners\] for
    transitioning to an all-digital network"[^242] and would prohibit
    Petitioners from "offer\[ing\] their subscribers the use of set-top
    boxes necessary to access even the basic features of the video
    system due to its all-digital transmissions."[^243] In addition, we
    note that many of the Petitioners are providing, or will provide,
    all-digital service to rural customer bases.[^244] Moreover, we
    disagree with CEA's assertions that the Waiver Requests should be
    denied because of their potential impact upon competition in cable
    navigation devices and the common reliance rule.[^245] As discussed
    above and in the *BendBroadband Order*, we believe that all-digital
    networks produce clear, non-speculative public interest benefits
    that, on balance, warrant a limited grant of the Waiver Requests.
    Therefore, the captioned Petitioners may deploy set-top boxes with
    integrated security after July 1, 2007.

60. On the other hand, we find that a waiver for certain high-end
    devices for traditional cable operators would be inconsistent with
    the narrowly defined goal of the conditional waiver granted to
    BendBroadband.[^246] The purpose of the conditional waiver granted
    in the *BendBroadband Order* under Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the
    Commission's rules was not meant to provide BendBroadband with a
    means to avoid the potentially higher short-term costs associated
    with deployment of non-integrated boxes to be used for other,
    high-end functions like digital video recorder ("DVR") and HD
    capabilities;[^247] rather, it was to permit BendBroadband to
    transition to an all-digital system. While the DCT-700 and
    Scientific Atlanta Explorer 1850 offer two-way functionality, we
    noted in the *Comcast Order* that, due to a lack of interest from
    cable operators, a low-cost device whose functionality is limited
    solely to making digital signals available on analog sets (*i.e.*, a
    truly "limited-capability" device) has never been mass
    produced.[^248] Accordingly, it is our understanding that the
    DCT-700 and the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 1850 are two of the most
    basic set-top boxes available to traditional cable operators being
    mass-produced at this time. By contrast, it appears that certain
    devices for which Petitioners seek waiver are the highest-end boxes
    on the market today. We are unconvinced that waiver for devices such
    as the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 3250 HD, Explorer 8300 SD DVR,
    and Explorer 8300 HD DVR is necessary to further Petitioners'
    migrations to all-digital systems. For the reasons discussed, we
    limit the relief granted to traditional cable operators in this
    order to devices that do not have HD or DVR capabilities.

61. It is our understanding that set-top box manufacturers have not
    developed any non-integrated HD or DVR devices for use with Internet
    Protocol ("IP"), Asynchronous Transfer Mode ("ATM") or hybrid QAM/IP
    systems.[^249] To the extent that this understanding is correct, we
    will allow operators to deploy HD and DVR devices with integrated
    security elements for use on such systems until July 1, 2008. Over
    the next year, those operators should work to develop and deploy a
    separable security solution that will allow for interoperability
    between their systems and consumer electronics equipment, preferably
    a downloadable solution based on open standards.[^250]

62. To the extent that the Petitioners have not yet transitioned to
    all-digital networks, this relief is conditional. As a condition of
    waiver, any Petitioner who has not yet completed its transition to
    an all-digital network must: (1) file with the Media Bureau a sworn
    declaration within 10 days of the release of this order in which it
    commits to move to an all-digital network on or before February 17,
    2009;[^251] (2) notifies all of its analog customers of its plans to
    go all digital at least one year in advance of that event and again
    six months in advance of that event,[^252] and submits a sworn
    declaration to the Commission confirming that such notice has been
    provided; (3) ensures that, at least one year prior to its migration
    to all digital, it has in its inventory or has placed orders for
    enough set-top boxes to ensure that each of its customers can
    continue to view its video programming on their television sets and
    submits a sworn declaration to the Commission confirming that this
    is the case, and (4) publicly commits to this plan by sworn
    declaration. As we explained in the *BendBroadband Order*, such a
    declaration will "demonstrate \[a\] commitment to move to an
    all-digital network."[^253]

# ordering clauses

63. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Sections 1.3 and
    76.7 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7, a waiver of
    Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    § 76.1204(a)(1), **IS GRANTED** to the petitioners listed in the
    Appendix as set forth in this Order.

64. 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

APPENDIX

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|   -----------------------------  |    |   -------------------------  |
|   Ace Telephone Association      |    |   CSR-7237-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Ace Telephone Association dba  |    |   CSR-7298-Z                 |
|   Ace Communications Group       |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7299-Z                 |
|   Ace Telephone Company of       |    |                              |
|   Michigan dba Ace               |    |   CSR-7300-Z                 |
|   Communications Group           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7238-Z                 |
|   Albany Mutual Telephone        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7301-Z                 |
|   All West Communications        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7239-Z, CSR-7302-Z     |
|   All West/Utah, Inc.            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7240-Z                 |
|   Alliance Communications        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7241-Z                 |
|   Alliance Telecommunications    |    |                              |
|   Corporation                    |    |   CSR-7303-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Ballard Rural Telephone        |    |   CSR-7192-Z                 |
|   Cooperative Corporation, Inc.  |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7242-Z                 |
|   BEK Communications Coop        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7304-Z                 |
|   Bernard Telephone Company      |    |                              |
|   Inc.                           |    |   CSR-7243-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   BEVCOMM, Inc.                  |    |   CSR-7347-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Branch Cable, Inc.             |    |   CSR-7244-Z, CSR-7305-Z     |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Brandenburg Telecom, LLC       |    |   CSR-7178-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Cablevision of Marion County,  |    |   CSR-7245-Z                 |
|   LLC                            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7306-Z                 |
|   Cameron Communications LLC     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7246-Z                 |
|   CenturyTel, Inc.               |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7116-Z                 |
|   Cheqtel Communications         |    |                              |
|   Company                        |    |   CSR-7307-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Chibardun Cable TV, Inc.       |    |   CSR-7308-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Chibardun Telephone            |    |   CSR-7309-Z                 |
|   Cooperative, Inc.              |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7310-Z                 |
|   City of San Bruno d/b/a San    |    |                              |
|   Bruno Municipal Cable TV       |    |   CSR-7247-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Coleman County                 |    |   CSR-7176-Z                 |
|   Telecommunications dba         |    |                              |
|   Coleman County Broadcasting    |    |   CSR-7248-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Consolidated Cable Vision,     |    |   CSR-7312-Z                 |
|   Inc.                           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7311-Z                 |
|   Consolidated Telephone         |    |                              |
|   Company                        |    |   CSR-7313-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Coon Valley                    |    |   CSR-7314-Z                 |
|   Telecommunications             |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7147-Z                 |
|   Crystal Communications Inc.    |    |                              |
|   dba HickoryTech                |    |   CSR-7249-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   CTC Video Services, LLC        |    |   CSR-7250-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   D&E Communications             |    |   CSR-7183-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   D&E Systems, Inc.              |    |   CSR-7315-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Daktel Communications, LLC     |    |   CSR-7251-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Delta Telephone, Inc.          |    |   CSR-7146-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   DTC Cable, Inc.                |    |   CSR-7316-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Dumont Telephone Company       |    |   CSR-7202-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Eckles Telephone Company       |    |   CSR-7252-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   EN-TEL Communications, LLC     |    |   CSR-7253-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   En-Touch Systems, Inc          |    |   CSR-7317-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Etex Communications, LP        |    |   CSR-7148-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Farmers Cooperative Telephone  |    |   CSR-7254-Z                 |
|   Company                        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7255-Z                 |
|   Farmers' and Business Mens'    |    |                              |
|   Telephone Company              |    |   CSR-7256-Z, CSR-7318-Z     |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Franklin Telephone, Inc.       |    |   CSR-7257-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Guiness Communications Inc.    |    |   CSR-7258-Z                 |
|   d/b/a Delta Cable Vision       |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7259-Z                 |
|   Halstad Telephone Company      |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7260-Z                 |
|   Hanson Communications, Inc.    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7319-Z                 |
|   Hargray CATV Company, Inc.     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7261-Z                 |
|   Heart of Iowa Communications   |    |                              |
|   Cooperative                    |    |   CSR-7320-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Hector Communications          |    |   CSR-7262-Z, CSR-7321-Z     |
|   Corporation                    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7149-Z                 |
|   Home Telephone Company of      |    |                              |
|   South Carolina                 |    |   CSR-7263-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Hometown Online, Inc           |    |   CSR-7264-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Horizon Telcom                 |    |   CSR-7215-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   HTC Services Inc.              |    |   CSR-7265-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Hutchinson Telecommunications  |    |   CSR-7322-Z                 |
|   Inc                            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7323-Z                 |
|   Hutchinson Telephone Company   |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7124-Z                 |
|   Indiana Fones, Inc.            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7182-Z                 |
|   Interstate Telecommunications  |    |                              |
|   Cooperative, Inc.              |    |   CSR-7184-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Interstate Telephone Company   |    |   CSR-7266-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   James Valley Cooperative       |    |   CSR-7324-Z                 |
|   Telephone Company              |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7267-Z                 |
|   Kalona Cooperative Telephone   |    |                              |
|   Co.                            |    |   CSR-7268-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Kaplan Telephone Company,      |    |   CSR-7269-Z                 |
|   Inc.                           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7271-Z                 |
|   Kasson & Mantorville           |    |                              |
|   Telephone Co.                  |    |   CSR-7325-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   La Motte Telephone Company     |    |   CSR-7270-Z, CSR-7326-Z     |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Lakedale Communications, LLC   |    |   CSR-7272-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   LaValle Long Distance          |    |   CSR-7273-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   LBH, LLC                       |    |   CSR-7327-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Liberty Cablevision of Puerto  |    |   CSR-7274-Z                 |
|   Rico, Ltd.                     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7275-Z                 |
|   Local Internet Service         |    |                              |
|   Company                        |    |   CSR-7276-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Mahaska Communications Group,  |    |   CSR-7328-Z                 |
|   LLC                            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7277-Z                 |
|   Manti Tele Communications      |    |                              |
|   Company                        |    |   CSR-7278-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Marquette Adams                |    |   CSR-7329-Z                 |
|   Communications, LLC            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7330-Z                 |
|   MH Telecom LLC                 |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7279-Z                 |
|   NEP Datavision, Inc.           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7201-Z                 |
|   New Ulm Telecom, Inc.          |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7185-Z                 |
|   North Central Communications,  |    |                              |
|   Inc.                           |    |   CSR-7142-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   North Dakota Telephone         |    |   CSR-7331-Z                 |
|   Company                        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7332-Z                 |
|   Northern Valley                |    |                              |
|   Communications                 |    |   CSR-7333-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Northland Communications,      |    |   CSR-7280-Z                 |
|   Inc.                           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7281-Z                 |
|   Northstar Access LLC           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7282-Z                 |
|   NTELOS Media Inc.              |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7283-Z                 |
|   Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone    |    |                              |
|   Cooperative                    |    |   CSR-7284-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   PBT Cable Services, Inc.       |    |   CSR-7143-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Peoples Telephone Company      |    |   CSR-7285-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Perry-Spencer Communications,  |    |   CSR-7334-Z                 |
|   Inc. dba PSC                   |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7335-Z                 |
|   Piedmont Rural Telephone       |    |                              |
|   Cooperative, Inc.              |    |   CSR-7336-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Pine Island Telephone Company  |    |   CSR-7337-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Pineland Telephone             |    |   CSR-7338-Z                 |
|   Cooperative, Inc.              |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7339-Z                 |
|   Price County Telephone Co.     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7340-Z                 |
|   PRTCommunications, LLC         |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7341-Z                 |
|   Puerto Rico Cable Acquisition  |    |                              |
|   Corp. d/b/a Choice Cable TV    |    |   CSR-7286-Z, CSR-7342-Z     |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Qwest Communications           |    |   CSR-7042-Z                 |
|   International, Inc.            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7343-Z                 |
|   Radcliffe Telephone Company    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7344-Z                 |
|   Richland Grant Long Distance   |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7345-Z                 |
|   Ringgold Telephone Company     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7214-Z                 |
|   Sancom, Inc.                   |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7287-Z, CSR-7346-Z     |
|   Santel Communications          |    |                              |
|   Cooperative                    |    |   CSR-7288-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Sherburne Cable-Com, Inc.      |    |   CSR-7289-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Sleepy Eye Telephone Company   |    |   CSR-7177-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   South Central Rural Telephone  |    |   CSR-7290-Z                 |
|   Cooperative Inc.               |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7140-Z                 |
|   South Central Telcom LLC       |    |                              |
|                                  |    |   CSR-7291-Z                 |
|   South Slope Cooperative        |    |                              |
|   Telephone Company              |    |   CSR-7292-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Split Rock Properties, Inc.    |    |   CSR-7293-Z                 |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   StarVision, Inc.               |    |   -------------------------  |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Stockholm Strandburg           |    |                              |
|   Telephone Company              |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Tech Com, Inc.                 |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Telepak Networks, Inc.         |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Tomorrow Valley Cable          |    |                              |
|   Television, Inc.               |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Union Information Systems,     |    |                              |
|   LLC                            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   United Telephone Mutual Aid    |    |                              |
|   Corp.                          |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Valley Communications, Inc.    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Venture Vision                 |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Verizon                        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Verneau Networks, Inc.         |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Vernon Communications, LLC     |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Viking Electronics dba Polar   |    |                              |
|   Cablevision                    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Volcano Vision, Inc.           |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Volunteer Wireless Inc.        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Wabash Independent Networks,   |    |                              |
|   Inc                            |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   West Carolina Communications   |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   West Liberty Telephone         |    |                              |
|   Company                        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Western Telephone Company      |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Winnebago Cooperative          |    |                              |
|   Telephone Association          |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Wood County Telephone dba      |    |                              |
|   Solarus                        |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   XIT Telecommunication &        |    |                              |
|   Technology LTD dba XIT         |    |                              |
|   Communications                 |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   Yadkin Valley Telecom, Inc.    |    |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|   -----------------------------  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

[^1]: The name of each petitioner and the CSR number assigned to each
    petitioner are set forth in the attached Appendix.

[^2]: 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."

[^3]: *See, e.g.,* Radcliffe Telephone Company Waiver Request at 3;
    Dumont Telephone Company Waiver Request at 3; En-Touch Waiver
    Request at 2.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7.

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(a).

[^6]: *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).

[^7]: [H.R. Rep. No]{.smallcaps}. 104-204, at 112 (1995).

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: S[. Rep]{.smallcaps}. 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^11]: *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).

[^12]: For marketing purposes, PODs are referred to as "CableCARDs."

[^13]: *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices*, 18 FCC Rcd
    7924, 7926, ¶ 4 (2003).

[^14]: *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).

[^15]: *Id.* at 6814, ¶ 31.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *Id.* at 6807, ¶ 27.

[^18]: *Id.* at 6809, ¶ 30.

[^19]: *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*."

[^20]: *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.

[^21]: *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 214-215, ¶¶ 16-20; *Comcast
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 238-241, ¶¶ 24-30.

[^22]: The Bureau also found good cause to grant Cablevision Systems
    Corporation's request for waiver based on the company's longstanding
    use of a separated security solution. *Cablevision Order*, 22 FCC
    Rcd at 225-227, ¶¶ 17-20.

[^23]: *See Charter Communications, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section
    76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules*, DA 07-2008 (2007)
    ("*Charter Order*"); *GCI Cable, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section
    76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules*, DA 07-2010 (2007) ("*GCI
    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 (2007) ("*Millennium Order*").

[^24]: *Millennium Order* at ¶ 16.

[^25]: *GCI Order* at ¶¶ 15, 17. and granted a waiver to Charter
    Communications, Inc. due to its demonstrated financial hardship.

[^26]: The Bureau also found good cause to grant Charter Communications,
    Inc.'s request for waiver due to the company's demonstrated
    financial hardship. *Charter Order* at ¶ 12.

[^27]: *See* City of San Bruno Waiver Request at 1-2; Letter from Nicole
    Paolini-Subramanya, Counsel, San Bruno Cable to Marlene Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, *attaching* Affidavit
    of Constance C. Jackson, City Manager, City of San Bruno (May 7,
    2007) ("*May 4 Affidavit*"). San Bruno has committed to complete its
    transition to an all-digital cable system by the deadline for the
    transition to digital television broadcasting imposed by Congress.
    Section 309(j)(14)(A) of the Communications Act states that "\[a\]
    full-power television broadcast license that authorizes analog
    television service may not be renewed to authorize such service for
    a period that extends beyond February 17, 2009." 47 U.S.C. §
    309(j)(14)(A). *See also Comcast Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 242, ¶ 34
    (2007) (granting "Comcast leave to file an amended waiver request
    that . . . seeks waiver 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.").

[^28]: City of San Bruno Waiver Request at 2.

[^29]: *Id.* at 3.

[^30]: *May 4 Affidavit*; *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 218, ¶
    26.

[^31]: City of San Bruno Waiver Request at 1-2, 4-5.

[^32]: ACA Comments, CSR-7112-Z, CSR-7110-Z, CSR-7117-Z, CSR-7116-Z,
    CSR-7124-Z, CSR-7109-Z, CSR-7111-Z, CSR-7114-Z, at 3 ("ACA March 5
    Comments"), Motorola Comments, CSR-7109-Z, CSR-7110-Z, CSR-7111-Z,
    CSR-7112-Z, CSR-7113-Z, CSR-7114-Z, CSR-7115-Z, CSR-7116-Z,
    CSR-7117-Z, at 1-2 ("Motorola March 5 Comments"), Letter from
    Congressman Tom Lantos to Brendan Murray, Media Bureau, Policy
    Division, Federal Communications Commission ("Congressman Lantos ex
    parte").

[^33]: ACA March 5 Comments at 8.

[^34]: Motorola March 5 Comments at 4.

[^35]: *Id.* at 5.

[^36]: Congressman Lantos ex parte.

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: CEA Comments, CSR-7116-Z, at 3.

[^39]: San Bruno Cable Reply at 3.

[^40]: LCPR Waiver Request at 1 & accompanying Sworn Declaration of Ivan
    Rosa, Director of Technical Operations of LCPR, at ¶ 2.

[^41]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^42]: *Id.* at 3.

[^43]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^44]: *Id.* at 6.

[^45]: *Id.* at 1, 4.

[^46]: LCPR Waiver Request at 4, 8-9; Reply Comments of Liberty
    Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd. at 2 ("LCPR Reply").

[^47]: LCPR Waiver Request at 4-6.

[^48]: *See* *id.*

[^49]: *Id.* at 7-8, citing 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(2).

[^50]: *Id.* at 9-10; LCPR Reply at 2.

[^51]: LCPR Waiver Request at 10.

[^52]: *Liberty Cablevision Files Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §
    76.1204(a)(1) with the Commission*, Public Notice DA 07-872 (rel.
    Feb. 27, 2007).

[^53]: ACA March 5 Comments at 3, 8.

[^54]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7124-Z, at 1-3.

[^55]: Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico Comments,
    CSR-7124-Z, at 2-4.

[^56]: CEA Comments, CSR-7124-Z, at 1-2. CEA also incorporates its
    earlier comments on BendBroadband's request for a waiver. *Id.* at 1
    n.1.

[^57]: LCPR Reply at 2-3.

[^58]: *Id.*, Exh. 1, Letter from the Honorable Luis G. Fortuño, Member
    of Congress for Puerto Rico to Kevin Martin, FCC Chairman (March 15,
    2007).

[^59]: These petitioners include: Winnebago Cooperative Telephone
    Association, Radcliffe Telephone Company, South Slope Cooperative
    Telephone Company, Farmers' and Business Mens' Telephone Company,
    Dumont Telephone Company, Heart of Iowa Communications Cooperative,
    Kalona Cooperative Telephone Co., West Liberty Telephone Company,
    Local Internet Service Company, Mahaska Communications Group, LLC,
    Bernard Telephone Company, Inc, and La Motte Telephone.

[^60]: *See, e.g.,* Winnebago Cooperative Telephone Association Waiver
    Request at 3, Radcliffe Telephone Company Waiver Request at 3.

[^61]: *Id.* at 3.

[^62]: *Id.* at 4.

[^63]: CEA Comments, CSR-7177-Z, CSR-7143-Z, CSR-7142-Z, CSR-7146-Z,
    CSR-7148-Z, CSR-7140-Z, CSR-7149-Z, CSR-7182-Z, CSR-7147-Z, at 3
    ("CEA INS Comments"); *see also* CEA Comments, CSR-7192-Z, at 4. CEA
    did not name Mahaska Communications Group, LLC, in its caption.

[^64]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7139-Z, CSR-7140-Z, CSR-7141-Z,
    CSR-7142-Z, CSR-7143-Z, CSR-7144-Z, CSR-7145-Z, CSR-7146-Z,
    CSR-7147-Z, CSR-7148-Z, CSR-7149-Z, CSR-7176-Z, CSR-7177-Z,
    CSR-7178-Z, CSR-7182-Z, CSR-7183-Z, CSR-7184-Z, CSR-7185-Z, at 9
    ("Motorola May 3 Comments").

[^65]: CEA INS Comments at 2; CEA Comments, CSR-7192-Z, at 4.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^68]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^69]: *Id.* at 6.

[^70]: INS Provider Joint Reply Comments at 2.

[^71]: *Id.* at 3.

[^72]: *Id.* at 11.

[^73]: *Id.* at 5.

[^74]: *Id.* at 7, 9.

[^75]: CTC Waiver Request at 7. The devices for which CTC seeks waiver
    are the Scientific Atlanta models Explorer 1850, Explorer 3250 HD,
    Explorer 8300 SD DVR, and Explorer 8300 HD DVR.

[^76]: *Id.* at 1.

[^77]: *Id.* at 2.

[^78]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^79]: *Id.* at 6.

[^80]: Motorola May 3 Comments at 6, n.18.

[^81]: Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President, Policy, United
    States Telecom Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission at 2 (May 14, 2007) ("USTA May 14 ex parte
    letter").

[^82]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^83]: CEA Comments, CSR-7176-Z, at 1.

[^84]: *Id.* at 2.

[^85]: CTC Reply at 5.

[^86]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^87]: *Id.* at 4.

[^88]: CenturyTel Waiver Request at 7-10.

[^89]: *Id.* at 1.

[^90]: *Id.* at 4.

[^91]: *Id.* at 5-6.

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

[^93]: *Id.* at 8-9.

[^94]: *Id.* at 11.

[^95]: USTA May 14 ex parte letter at 3.

[^96]: Motorola May 3 Comments at 6.

[^97]: *Id.* at 5.

[^98]: CEA Comments, CSR-7178-Z, at 3-4.

[^99]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^100]: *Id.* at 5.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: CenturyTel Reply at 2.

[^103]: *Id.* at 3.

[^104]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^105]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^106]: En-Touch Waiver Request at 2. En-Touch has provided a sworn
    declaration from its Chief Engineer attesting that it will
    transition to all-digital video service by February 17, 2009 and
    meet the other conditions placed upon BendBroadband in the
    *BendBroadband Order* if the Waiver Request is granted. *See* Waiver
    Request, *attaching* Sworn Declaration of Jason Bone, Chief
    Engineer, En-Touch Systems Inc. In addition, excepting local
    broadcast stations, En-Touch plans to transition its programming to
    all-digital on or before March 31, 2008. *Id*. .

[^107]: *Id*.

[^108]: *Id*. at 3-4.

[^109]: Motorola May 3 Comments at 6.

[^110]: *Id.* at 5-7.

[^111]: CEA Comments, CSR-7183-Z, at 2-3.

[^112]: *Id*. at 3.

[^113]: *Id*.

[^114]: En-Touch Reply at 2.

[^115]: *Id.* at 3.

[^116]: Qwest Waiver Request at 1.

[^117]: *Id.*

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

[^119]: *Id.* at 2, 7, 10.

[^120]: *Id.* at 2, 10.

[^121]: *Id.* at 8-11.

[^122]: *Id.* at 6, 11-12.

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

[^124]: *Id.* at 12.

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: Motorola May 3 Comments at 9.

[^127]: *Id.* at 9-10.

[^128]: CEA Comments, CSR-7182, at 2-3.

[^129]: *Id.* at 3.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: Qwest Reply at 3.

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: *Id.* at 2-4; Qwest Waiver Request at 7-12.

[^134]: Qwest Reply at 4.

[^135]: Letter from Dee May, Vice President, Federal Regulatory,
    Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission at 2 (June 29, 2007).

[^136]: *Id*. (*citing* BendBroadband Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 217, ¶ 24).

[^137]: *Id.* at 3.

[^138]: Verizon Waiver Request at 5.

[^139]: *Id.* at 8.

[^140]: *Id.* at 9-11, 23-24 (*citing* *First Report and Order* at
    14800-01).

[^141]: Verizon Waiver Request at 26.

[^142]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 2-3.

[^143]: CEA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 4; Sony Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at
    3-4.

[^144]: CEA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 4.

[^145]: CEA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 9.

[^146]: NCTA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 14.

[^147]: Verizon Reply at 4-5.

[^148]: *Id.* at 8.

[^149]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 3.

[^150]: *Id.* at 5.

[^151]: *Id.* at 4.-5.

[^152]: NCTA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 9. NCTA claims that a company with
    Verizon's technical and financial resources (revenue of \$75
    billion, more than all the cable service companies combined) has
    resources a true new entrant does not.

[^153]: *Id.* at 5.

[^154]: *Id.* at 4.

[^155]: *Id.*

[^156]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^157]: Verizon Reply at 3.

[^158]: *Id.*

[^159]: CEA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 10.

[^160]: *Id.*

[^161]: TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 6.

[^162]: Verizon Reply at 12.

[^163]: *Id.* at 12-13.

[^164]: NCTA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 8.

[^165]: *Id.* at 7-8 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 549(c)).

[^166]: Verizon Reply at 12, TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 8.

[^167]: TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 8-9.

[^168]: *Id.*

[^169]: Verizon Reply at 14-15.

[^170]: *See* TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 7; IT Comments, CSR-7042-Z,
    at 5.

[^171]: CEA Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 6; TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 7.

[^172]: TiVo Comments, CSR-7042-Z, at 7.

[^173]: *Id.* at 7-8.

[^174]: Verizon Reply at 12.

[^175]: *See* Choice Waiver Request, CSR-7042-Z, at 2-6.

[^176]: *Id*. at 1, 2.

[^177]: *Id.* at 2.

[^178]: *Id.*

[^179]: *Id.* at 8-10.

[^180]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^181]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^182]: *Id.* at 3.

[^183]: *Id.* at 5-6 n.8 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(2)).

[^184]: *Id.* at 7-8.

[^185]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7201-Z, CSR-7202-Z, at 2 ("Motorola June
    7 Comments").

[^186]: *Id.* at 4.

[^187]: CEA Comments, CSR-7193-Z, CSR-7202-Z, CSR-7201-Z, at 1-2 ("CEA
    Non-Contiguous U.S. Comments").

[^188]: *Id.* at 2.

[^189]: *Id.*

[^190]: *Id.*

[^191]: Although Delta is a Canadian cable operator, it provides service
    to approximately 750 U.S. consumers who live in Point Roberts,
    Washington. Waiver Request at 1.

[^192]: *Id.*

[^193]: *See BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 209.

[^194]: Delta Waiver Request at 3 & n.5.

[^195]: *Id*. at 4.

[^196]: *Id.* at 3.

[^197]: Motorola June 7 Comments at 1-3.

[^198]: CEA Non-Contiguous U.S. Comments at 2.

[^199]: Delta Reply at 1-2.

[^200]: Waiver Request at 1.

[^201]: *Id.*

[^202]: *Id.* at 3.

[^203]: *Id.* at 4.

[^204]: *Id.* at 5; *see* *BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 215, ¶
    20.

[^205]: Volcano Vision Waiver Request at 6.

[^206]: Motorola Comments, CSR-7212-Z, CSR-7214-Z, CSR-7216, at 5.

[^207]: *Id.* at 4; *see GCI Order* (granting GCI's request conditioned
    on GCI going all-digital by February 17, 2009); *Millennium Order*
    (granting Millennium's request conditioned on Millennium going
    all-digital by December 31, 2007).

[^208]: CEA Comments, CSR-7214-Z, at 2.

[^209]: Volcano Vision Reply at 2.

[^210]: *Id.* at 3.

[^211]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(a), (c).

[^212]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7, 76.1207.

[^213]: The members of the ATM and IPTV Providers Group are: Ace
    Telephone Association, All West Communications, Alliance
    Communications, Alliance Telecommunications Corporation, Ballard
    Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., BEVCOMM, Inc.,
    Brandenburg Telecom, LLC, Cameron Communications LLC, Cheqtel
    Communications Company, Chibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc.,
    Crystal Communications Inc. dba HickoryTech, D&E Communications,
    Eckles Telephone Company, EN-TEL Communications, LLC, Farmers
    Cooperative Telephone Company, Halstad Telephone Company, Hanson
    Communications, Inc., Hector Communications Corporation, Home
    Telephone Company of South Carolina, Hometown Online, Inc, Horizon
    Telcom, HTC Services Inc., Hutchinson Telecommunications Inc,
    Hutchinson Telephone Company, Interstate Telecommunications
    Cooperative, Inc., James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company,
    Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc., Kasson & Mantorville Telephone Co.,
    Lakedale Communications, LLC, Manti Tele Communications Company, MH
    Telecom LLC, NEP Datavision, Inc., New Ulm Telecom, Inc., Northern
    Valley Communications, North Central Communications, Inc., Northland
    Communications, Inc., Northstar Access LLC, Paul Bunyan Rural
    Telephone Cooperative, PBT Cable Services, Inc., Peoples Telephone
    Company, Piedmont Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Pine Island
    Telephone Company, PRTCommunications, LLC, Santel Communications
    Cooperative, Sherburne Cable-Com, Inc., Sleepy Eye Telephone
    Company, South Central Rural Telephone Cooperative Inc., South
    Central Telcom LLC, Split Rock Properties, Inc., Venture Vision,
    Volunteer Wireless Inc., Wabash Independent Networks, Inc, West
    Carolina Communications, Western Telephone Company, Wood County
    Telephone dba Solarus, XIT Telecommunication & Technology LTD dba
    XIT Communications, Yadkin Valley Telecom, Inc., Ace Telephone
    Association dba Ace Communications Group, Ace Telephone Company of
    Michigan dba Ace Communications Group, Albany Mutual Telephone, All
    West/Utah, Inc., Alliance Communications, BEK Communications Coop,
    Branch Cable, Inc., Cameron Communications, LLC,Chibardun Cable TV,
    Inc., Coleman County Telecommunications dba Coleman County
    Broadcasting, Consolidated Cable Vision, Inc., Consolidated
    Telephone Company, Coon Valley Telecommunications, Daktel
    Communications, LLC, D&E Systems, Inc., Delta Telephone, Inc., DTC
    Cable, Inc., Etex Communications, LP, Franklin Telephone, Inc.,
    Hargray CATV Company, Inc., Hometown Online, Inc., Indiana Fones,
    Inc., Interstate Telephone Company, James Valley Cooperative
    Telephone Company, LaValle Long Distance, LBH, LLC, Marquette Adams
    Communications, LLC, North Dakota Telephone Company, Northern Valley
    Communications, LLC, NTELOS Media Inc., Perry-Spencer
    Communications, Inc. dba PSC, Pineland Telephone Cooperative, Inc.,
    Price County Telephone Co., Richland Grant Long Distance, Ringgold
    Telephone Company, Sancom, Inc., StarVision, Inc., Stockholm
    Strandburg Telephone Company, Tech Com, Inc., Telepak Networks,
    Inc., Tomorrow Valley Cable Television, Inc., Union Information
    Systems, LLC, United Telephone Mutual Aid Corp., Valley
    Communications, Inc., Venture Vision, Verneau Networks, Inc., Vernon
    Communications, LLC, Viking Electronics dba Polar Cablevision,
    Volunteer Wireless, Inc.

[^214]: *See* 46 C.F.R. § 76.1204(b) ("Conditional access function
    equipment made available pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this
    section shall be designed to connect to and function with other
    navigation devices available through the use of a commonly used
    interface or an interface that conforms to appropriate technical
    standards promulgated by a national standards organization.").

[^215]: Rural ATM Waiver Request at 6; IPTV Operators Waiver Request at
    4-5.

[^216]: Rural ATM Waiver Request at 6-7; IPTV Operators Waiver Request
    at 4-5.

[^217]: Rural ATM Waiver Request at 6; IPTV Operators Waiver Request at
    9-10.

[^218]: Rural ATM Waiver Request at 9.

[^219]: *Id*. at 9-10. *See also* IPTV Operators Waiver Request at 12.

[^220]: Rural ATM Waiver Request at 11-12; IPTV Operators Waiver Request
    at 14.

[^221]: *See* Rural ATM Waiver Request at 15-16; IPTV Operators Waiver
    Request at 16-17.

[^222]: *See* Rural ATM Waiver Request at 12-13, 17; IPTV Operators
    Waiver Request at 15.

[^223]: Those devices are the DCT-700, the DCT-2500, the DSR-410, and
    the DSR-470. CMC Waiver Request at 2.

[^224]: *See* *id* at 1-2.

[^225]: *Id*. at 1.

[^226]: *Id*. at 3.

[^227]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^228]: Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act), reproduced in the notes
    under 47 U.S.C. § 157.

[^229]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^230]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.7.

[^231]: 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.

[^232]: 47 U.S.C. § 549(c).

[^233]: [S. Rep.]{.smallcaps} 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).

[^234]: *See* *First Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14801, ¶ 65
    (declining to apply the integration ban to DBS providers and noting
    that "in many instances, the Commission refrains from imposing
    regulations on new entrants") (citation omitted).

[^235]: *See, e.g*., En-Touch Waiver Request at 2.

[^236]: *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.

[^237]: *Id.* at 214, ¶ 14.

[^238]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules
    and Policies Affecting the Conversion To Digital Television*, FCC
    07-69, ¶¶ 9-14 (rel. May 3, 2007) (adopting a labeling requirement
    for analog-only television receivers while noting that "\[t\]he
    government has a strong interest in ensuring a timely conclusion of
    the digital transition"); *Requirements for Digital Television
    Receiving Capability*, 21 FCC Rcd. 9478, 9480, ¶ 7 (2006) (stating
    that "consumers must be able to receive digital TV signals for the
    DTV transition to move forward to a successful completion");
    *Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability*, 20 FCC
    Rcd 18607, 18609, ¶ 6 (2005) (stating that consumers' ability to
    receive digital TV signals is essential to a successful completion
    of the DTV transition). *See also BendBroadband Order,* 20 FCC Rcd
    at 217, ¶ 24.

[^239]: *BendBroadband Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 218, ¶ 27.

[^240]: *See supra* n.21-24 and accompanying text.

[^241]: While we do not decide in this order whether the ATM and IPTV
    Providers Group members are in compliance with Section 76.1204(a)(1)
    as they claim, we nevertheless grant them waiver of that provision,
    which will afford them relief similar to what they seek.

[^242]: *See, e.g.*, INS Provider Joint Reply Comments at 9; LCPR Waiver
    Request at 1-2; CTC Waiver Request at 1-2.

[^243]: INS Provider Joint Reply Comments at 9. *See also* INS Provider
    Joint Reply Comments at 9. (arguing that, absent a waiver,
    "\[s\]ubscribers would ... \[be\] deprived from a primary source of
    news, entertainment, and advanced services that are readily
    available to their urban counterparts, a result that would be
    plainly inequitable and, in these cases, unnecessary"); INS Provider
    Joint Reply Comments at 10 (stating that "\[a\] waiver therefore is
    necessary to permit subscribers to continue to enjoy the benefits
    that \[Petitioners'\] advanced all-digital video service offers, and
    to allow Petitioner\[s\] to continue to expand \[their\] service to
    subscribers that would not otherwise have access to high-quality
    video programming and services in rural areas").

[^244]: *See, e.g.,* INS Provider Joint Reply Comments at 10 (stating
    that the Petitioners "have not merely committed to, but have
    delivered, an all-digital network to serve their rural customer
    bases"); Volcano Vision Waiver Request at 1(stating that waiver
    "will permit Volcano Vision to execute its plan to convert its
    small, rural cable television to an all-digital network by early
    2008, thereby providing its customers with expanded, high quality
    programming services and broadband internet access.").

[^245]: CEA INS Comments at 5 (arguing that granting the Waiver Requests
    "would appear to eviscerate competitive availability as well as
    common reliance").

[^246]: *See* *Millennium Order* at ¶ 17.

[^247]: *See generally Implementation of Section 304 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996; Commercial Availability of
    Navigation Devices*, Second Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 7924, ¶ 29
    (2005) ("We do not take lightly the imposition of additional costs
    on consumers, particularly in our efforts to implement a
    consumer-friendly statutory directive to increase competition.
    However, we are inclined to agree with the CE parties that the cost
    of the POD and POD-host interface combination likely will decrease
    over time as volume increases. In addition, 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. In particular, it seems likely that the
    potential savings to consumers from greater choice among navigation
    devices will offset some of the costs from separating the security
    and non-security functions of either MVPD-supplied devices or those
    that might be otherwise be made available through retail outlets.").

[^248]: *Comcast Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 239, ¶ 26 n.97.

[^249]: *See, e.g*., INS Provider Joint Reply Comments at 5.

[^250]: We also encourage these operators to take an active role in the
    Commission's efforts to develop a solution for bidirectional
    compatibility between consumer electronics devices and multichannel
    video programming systems. *See* *Implementation of Section 304 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-120 (rel. June 29, 2007).

[^251]: Although certain Petitioner's target dates for transitioning to
    all-digital cable systems are slightly longer than that permitted in
    the *BendBroadband Order*, we believe the additional periods
    requested to transition to all-digital systems are of a reasonably
    short duration such that they are generally consistent with the
    deadline imposed upon BendBroadband. The key to the public interest
    analysis is that these transitions will be complete by the February
    17, 2009 deadline for the DTV transition. *See GCI Order* at n.54,

[^252]: Cablevision of Marion County seeks to transition certain systems
    in early 2008, would prefer not to wait an entire year before
    transitioning those systems, and therefore proposes a six-month
    notification period. *See* CMC Waiver Request at 4. Given CMC's
    ambitious transition plan, that request is granted for any system
    that CMC plans to transition to all-digital before July 1, 2008.

[^253]: *See BendBroadband Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 216, ¶ 21. It is
    important that these operators notify their analog customers about
    the impending transitions to an all-digital networks to ensure that
    the subscribers understand that devices that are not equipped with
    CableCARDs will not receive cable service without a set-top box, and
    to provide those subscribers with ample time to order CableCARDs or
    request set-top boxes from their providers.