Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Consolidated Requests for Waiver of Section 
76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions Rules1
Implementation of Section 304 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Commercial Availability of 
Navigation Devices
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CS Docket No. 97-80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  June 29, 2007 Released:  June 29, 2007
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
I. 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 Commissions 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 Commissions rules.4
II. 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
2
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 
  
5 47 U.S.C.  549(a).
6 See S. REP. 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. 104-204, at 112 (1995).
8 Id.
9 S. REP. 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
3
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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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 Commissions rules.23 The Bureau conditionally 
granted waivers to Millennium Telecom, LLC d/b/a OneSource Communications24 and GCI Cable, Inc.25
similar to the waiver granted to BendBroadband.26
  
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 
Commissions Rules, 22 FCC Rcd 209 (2007) (BendBroadband Order); Cablevision Systems Corporations 
Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions Rules, 22 FCC Rcd 220 (2007) (Cablevision 
Order); Comcast Corporation Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions 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 Corporations request for waiver based on the 
companys 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 Commissions Rules, DA 
07-2008 (2007) (Charter Order); GCI Cable, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the 
Commissions 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 Commissions 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 
companys demonstrated financial hardship.  Charter Order at  12.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
4
B. The Waiver Requests and Comments
1. 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 Cables 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, Motorolas 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, 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
5
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 
Cables 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 
Cables 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
2. 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 LCPRs 
service who have analog receivers will need a set-top box to convert LCPRs 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 Motorolas 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
6
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 LCPRs subscriber base is so small that waiving the integration ban for 
it will not impair the achievement of the bans national goals.51
12. LCPRs Request was placed on public notice on February 27, 2007.52 Four parties filed 
responsive comments.  ACA supports LCPRs Request, emphasizing the companys 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 LCPRs 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 CEAs 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. Fortuo, Member of Congress for Puerto Rico.58
  
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 BendBroadbands 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. Fortuo, Member of Congress for Puerto Rico to Kevin Martin, 
FCC Chairman (March 15, 2007).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
7
3. 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 FCCs 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
8
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 Commissions 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 CEAs assertions, 
they are not required under Section 76.640 of the Commissions 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
4. 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
9
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 
CTCs 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 CTCs 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 CTCs 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
5. 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
10
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 CenturyTels 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 companys 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 CenturyTels 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 CenturyTels 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 CenturyTels 
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
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
11
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 CEAs Comments regarding CenturyTels 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
6. 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, 
Motorolas 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-
Touchs plan to transition to an all-digital network.110  CEA argues that grant of the Waiver Request will 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
12
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-Touchs 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
7. 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 Qwests 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
13
the unhindered development and deployment of an improved video delivery platform.124 Finally, Qwest 
posits that granting waiver will further the Acts 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 Qwests waiver request, echoing and confirming Qwests 
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 Qwests 
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 Qwests 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
14
because of the increased competition resulting in lower prices, improved customer service, and consumer 
choices.134
8. 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 Verizons HD offering.137 In its Waiver Request, Verizon 
also argues that the Commission must grant the Waiver Request because Verizons 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 Verizons 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 Verizons 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 doesnt explain how the service differs from current 
cable service, since Verizons IP-services are similar to cables 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 Verizons
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
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
15
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, Verizons 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 Verizons 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 629s 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 
Verizons 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 FCCs forbearance for DBS as precedent
for a waiver.159 CEA asserts that rather than creating a precedent, the Commission decided that, with 
  
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 Verizons 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
16
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 Commissions 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 Verizons 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 Verizons 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 its unique technological platform is a category, and 
that NCTAs proposed reading of category in Section 629(c) would lead to an absurd result, is 
untenable when considered in context, and contradicts NCTAs past interpretations of the statute.169
42. Many commenters contend that Verizons 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, Verizons 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 
  
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. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
17
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 Commissions 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
9. 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 Choices service who have analog receivers will need a set-top box to convert 
Choices 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 Motorolas 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 
  
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)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
18
Puerto Rico.184
46. Two parties submitted comments on Choices Waiver Request, one in support and one in 
opposition.  Motorola strongly supports Choices request and echoes Choices 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 bans 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 Commissions 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
10. 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 Motorolas least expensive 
CableCARD equipped device costs approximately three times as much as the integrated DCT-700194 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
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
19
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 CEAs 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 Commissions existing precedent . . . .199
11. 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 companys 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 Visions 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 doesnt 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, 
  
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 GCIs request conditioned on GCI going all-digital by February 17, 2009); 
Millennium Order (granting Millenniums request conditioned on Millennium going all-digital by December 31, 
2007).
208 CEA Comments, CSR-7214-Z, at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
20
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
12. 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 
amended211 and sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commissions 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 Commissions 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, 
  
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.
213The 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
21
and does not conform to technical standards promulgated by a national standards organization).214
Certain ATM and IPTV Providers Groups 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 Groups 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 Acts overall 
objective of deploying advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all 
Americans by denying Rural ATMs 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 nations cable subscribers, and grant of their Waiver Requests would have a negligible 
effect on the nationwide market for navigation devices.222
13. 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  
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
22
CMC claims that this relief would be consistent with the relief afforded BendBroadband, GCI, and 
Millennium.226
III. 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 1.3229 and 76.7230 of the Commissions 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 Commissions 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 
Petitioners 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 Commissions 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.  
A. 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 
  
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 Commissions 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. 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
23
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
B. Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commissions 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 Commissions goal of promoting the broadcast television digital 
transition.238 The Bureau conditionally granted BendBroadbands waiver request pursuant to Sections 1.3 
and 76.7 of the Commissions rules,239 subject to BendBroadbands 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 
  
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 BendBroadbands 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 Commissions 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
24
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 network242 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 CEAs 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 Commissions 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 
  
242See, 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.).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
25
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
  
248Comcast 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 Commissions 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 Petitioners 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 CMCs 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
26
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
63. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the 
Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, 76.7, a waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions 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 
Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.283.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Shah Desai
Chief, Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
27
APPENDIX
Ace Telephone Association
Ace Telephone Association dba Ace 
Communications Group
Ace Telephone Company of Michigan dba 
Ace Communications Group
Albany Mutual Telephone
All West Communications
All West/Utah, Inc.
Alliance Communications
Alliance Telecommunications Corporation
Ballard Rural Telephone Cooperative 
Corporation, Inc.
BEK Communications Coop
Bernard Telephone Company Inc.
BEVCOMM, Inc.
Branch Cable, Inc.
Brandenburg Telecom, LLC
Cablevision of Marion County, LLC
Cameron Communications LLC
CenturyTel, Inc.
Cheqtel Communications Company
Chibardun Cable TV, Inc.
Chibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
City of San Bruno d/b/a San Bruno Municipal 
Cable TV
Coleman County Telecommunications dba 
Coleman County Broadcasting
Consolidated Cable Vision, Inc.
Consolidated Telephone Company
Coon Valley Telecommunications
CSR-7237-Z
CSR-7298-Z
CSR-7299-Z
CSR-7300-Z
CSR-7238-Z
CSR-7301-Z
CSR-7239-Z, CSR-7302-Z
CSR-7240-Z
CSR-7241-Z
CSR-7303-Z
CSR-7192-Z
CSR-7242-Z
CSR-7304-Z
CSR-7243-Z
CSR-7347-Z
CSR-7244-Z, CSR-7305-Z
CSR-7178-Z
CSR-7245-Z
CSR-7306-Z
CSR-7246-Z
CSR-7116-Z
CSR-7307-Z
CSR-7308-Z
CSR-7309-Z
CSR-7310-Z
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
28
Crystal Communications Inc. dba 
HickoryTech
CTC Video Services, LLC
D&E Communications
D&E Systems, Inc.
Daktel Communications, LLC
Delta Telephone, Inc.
DTC Cable, Inc.
Dumont Telephone Company
Eckles Telephone Company
EN-TEL Communications, LLC
En-Touch Systems, Inc
Etex Communications, LP
Farmers Cooperative Telephone Company
Farmers and Business Mens Telephone 
Company
Franklin Telephone, Inc.
Guiness Communications Inc. d/b/a Delta 
Cable Vision
Halstad Telephone Company
Hanson Communications, Inc.
Hargray CATV Company, Inc.
Heart of Iowa Communications Cooperative
Hector Communications Corporation
Home Telephone Company of South Carolina
Hometown Online, Inc
Horizon Telcom
HTC Services Inc.
Hutchinson Telecommunications Inc
Hutchinson Telephone Company
Indiana Fones, Inc.
Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, 
Inc.
Interstate Telephone Company
James Valley Cooperative Telephone 
Company
CSR-7247-Z
CSR-7176-Z
CSR-7248-Z
CSR-7312-Z
CSR-7311-Z
CSR-7313-Z
CSR-7314-Z
CSR-7147-Z
CSR-7249-Z
CSR-7250-Z
CSR-7183-Z
CSR-7315-Z
CSR-7251-Z
CSR-7146-Z
CSR-7316-Z
CSR-7202-Z
CSR-7252-Z
CSR-7253-Z
CSR-7317-Z
CSR-7148-Z
CSR-7254-Z
CSR-7255-Z
CSR-7256-Z, CSR-7318-Z
CSR-7257-Z
CSR-7258-Z
CSR-7259-Z
CSR-7260-Z
CSR-7319-Z
CSR-7261-Z
CSR-7320-Z
CSR-7262-Z, CSR-7321-Z
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
29
Kalona Cooperative Telephone Co.
Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc.
Kasson & Mantorville Telephone Co.
La Motte Telephone Company
Lakedale Communications, LLC
LaValle Long Distance
LBH, LLC
Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd.
Local Internet Service Company
Mahaska Communications Group, LLC
Manti Tele Communications Company
Marquette Adams Communications, LLC
MH Telecom LLC
NEP Datavision, Inc.
New Ulm Telecom, Inc.
North Central Communications, Inc.
North Dakota Telephone Company
Northern Valley Communications
Northland Communications, Inc.
Northstar Access LLC
NTELOS Media Inc.
Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone Cooperative
PBT Cable Services, Inc.
Peoples Telephone Company
Perry-Spencer Communications, Inc. dba PSC
Piedmont Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
CSR-7149-Z
CSR-7263-Z
CSR-7264-Z
CSR-7215-Z
CSR-7265-Z
CSR-7322-Z
CSR-7323-Z
CSR-7124-Z
CSR-7182-Z
CSR-7184-Z
CSR-7266-Z
CSR-7324-Z
CSR-7267-Z
CSR-7268-Z
CSR-7269-Z
CSR-7271-Z
CSR-7325-Z
CSR-7270-Z, CSR-7326-Z
CSR-7272-Z
CSR-7273-Z
CSR-7327-Z
CSR-7274-Z
CSR-7275-Z
CSR-7276-Z
CSR-7328-Z
CSR-7277-Z
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
30
Pine Island Telephone Company
Pineland Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Price County Telephone Co.
PRTCommunications, LLC
Puerto Rico Cable Acquisition Corp. d/b/a
Choice Cable TV
Qwest Communications International, Inc.
Radcliffe Telephone Company
Richland Grant Long Distance
Ringgold Telephone Company
Sancom, Inc.
Santel Communications Cooperative
Sherburne Cable-Com, Inc.
Sleepy Eye Telephone Company
South Central Rural Telephone Cooperative 
Inc.
South Central Telcom LLC
South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company
Split Rock Properties, 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
Verizon
Verneau Networks, Inc.
Vernon Communications, LLC
Viking Electronics dba Polar Cablevision
CSR-7278-Z
CSR-7329-Z
CSR-7330-Z
CSR-7279-Z
CSR-7201-Z
CSR-7185-Z
CSR-7142-Z
CSR-7331-Z
CSR-7332-Z
CSR-7333-Z
CSR-7280-Z
CSR-7281-Z
CSR-7282-Z
CSR-7283-Z
CSR-7284-Z
CSR-7143-Z
CSR-7285-Z
CSR-7334-Z
CSR-7335-Z
CSR-7336-Z
CSR-7337-Z
CSR-7338-Z
CSR-7339-Z
CSR-7340-Z
CSR-7341-Z
CSR-7286-Z, CSR-7342-Z
CSR-7042-Z
CSR-7343-Z
CSR-7344-Z
CSR-7345-Z
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2921
31
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.
CSR-7214-Z
CSR-7287-Z, CSR-7346-Z
CSR-7288-Z
CSR-7289-Z
CSR-7177-Z
CSR-7290-Z
CSR-7140-Z
CSR-7291-Z
CSR-7292-Z
CSR-7293-Z