[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66149-66158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27601]



[[Page 66149]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[FCC 18-166]


Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications; Modernization of 
Media Regulation Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) provides that certain written notices from MVPDs to 
subscribers may be provided electronically via verified email, so long 
as the MVPD complies with certain consumer safeguards. In addition, we 
authorize cable operators to respond to consumer requests and 
complaints via email in certain circumstances, and eliminate a portion 
of our rules because they are outdated. As set forth below, we conclude 
that these changes will help the environment and provide flexibility to 
MVPD operators while ensuring that consumers continue to receive 
required notices and other important information.

DATES: Effective January 25, 2019, except for new Sec.  76.1600 and the 
amendments to Sec. Sec.  76.1614 and 76.1619, which are delayed. We 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date of those amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Lyle Elder, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f9ccd9d09bf0d9d1d0c7f5d3d6d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7ab9e8b82c9a28b838295a7818484c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division 
(202) 418-2120. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-
8165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 18-166, adopted on November 15, 2018 and released on 
November 16, 2018, and the Erratum to that Order, adopted on November 
30, 2018 and released on December 4, 2018. The full text of these 
documents is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) 
website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be 
available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is 
open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e7e2e2b4b1b5c1e7e2e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f5f0f0a6a3a7d3f5f0f0bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a> or calling the 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, we modernize our rules regarding 
certain information that cable operators currently are required to 
provide to their subscribers on paper. As explained below, we will 
permit these notices to instead be provided electronically via verified 
email, so long as the cable operator complies with certain consumer 
safeguards.\1\ We also permit electronic delivery of subscriber privacy 
information that cable operators and other multichannel video 
programming distributors (MVPDs) are required to provide. In addition, 
we authorize cable operators to respond to consumer requests and 
complaints via email in certain circumstances, and eliminate Sec. Sec.  
76.1621 and 76.1622 of our rules because they are outdated. Through 
this proceeding, the Commission continues its efforts to modernize its 
regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements that can impede 
competition and innovation in the media marketplace.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We will permit any notice sent by verified email to be 
provided to subscribers via a weblink contained in the text of the 
email. In addition, we will permit information about rates and 
channel line-ups contained in paper-delivered annual notices to 
contain the full text or list a website address that contains such 
information.
    \2\ See Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (MB 2017) (initiating a 
review of rules applicable to media entities to eliminate or modify 
regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    2. The rules at issue in this proceeding are set forth in Subpart T 
of Part 76 and require cable operators to communicate certain 
information to their subscribers in writing.\3\ The Subpart T rules 
were adopted to implement Congress's directive, in the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act), that 
the Commission adopt customer service standards for cable operators.\4\ 
In the 1992 Cable Act, Congress amended section 632 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (Act) to require the Commission to 
``establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their 
customer service requirements'' and specified that ``[s]uch standards 
shall include, at a minimum, requirements governing . . . 
communications between the cable operator and the subscriber (including 
standards governing bills and refunds).'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 47 CFR 76.1601 et seq. The specific Subpart T rules at issue 
are discussed in more detail in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) in this proceeding. Electronic Delivery of MVPD 
Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10755 at 10755-10757, para. 2 
(2017) (addressing Sec. Sec.  76.1601, 76.1602, 76.1603, 76.1604, 
76.1618, 76.1620, 76.1621, and 76.1622) (NPRM).
    \4\ Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) (1992 Cable Act).
    \5\ 47 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In June 2017, the Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling that 
interpreted the written communication requirement of one section of 
Subpart T to be satisfied by electronic delivery of written material to 
subscribers.\6\ Specifically, the Commission determined that cable 
operators may comply with Sec.  76.1602(b) of the Commission's rules, 
which requires cable operators to provide annual notices containing a 
variety of information about their service offerings, by distributing 
notices via email to a verified email address so long as the operator 
provides a mechanism for customers to opt out of email delivery and 
continue to receive paper notices.\7\ The Commission concluded that 
emails, ``by their very nature, convey information in writing'' and 
therefore it is reasonable to interpret the term ``written 
information'' in Sec.  76.1602(b) to include information

[[Page 66150]]

delivered by email.\8\ The Commission also found that the benefits of 
permitting email delivery include the positive environmental aspects of 
saving substantial amounts of paper annually, increased efficiency, and 
enabling customers to more readily access accurate information 
regarding their service options.\9\ In addition, the Commission found 
that section 632(b) of the Act ``provides the Commission with broad 
authority to `establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill 
their customer service requirements.' '' \10\ In the wake of this 
Declaratory Ruling, a number of commenters in the Media Modernization 
proceeding asked the Commission to consider permitting electronic 
delivery of the information required to be provided to cable 
subscribers in other Subpart T rules, as well as to consider other 
changes to the rules in Subpart T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See National Cable & Telecommunications Association and 
American Cable Association, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5269 (2017) (2017 Declaratory 
Ruling). The Declaratory Ruling granted a petition for declaratory 
ruling filed by NCTA--The Internet and Television Association (NCTA) 
and the American Cable Association (ACA). See Petition for 
Declaratory Ruling of National Cable & Telecommunications 
Association and American Cable Association, MB Docket No. 16-126 
(filed Mar. 7, 2016) (requesting clarification that the written 
information that cable operators must provide to their subscribers 
pursuant to Section 76.1602(b) of the Commission's rules may be 
provided via electronic distribution).
    \7\ See 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5269, para. 6. 
See 47 CFR 76.1602(b) (requiring cable operators to provide certain 
written information about their service offerings to subscribers 
annually, at the time of installation, and at any time upon 
request).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id. at para. 7 (citing 47 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In response to the proposals in the Media Modernization 
proceeding, the Commission adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) in this proceeding in December 2017.\11\ The NPRM proposed to 
allow additional types of Subpart T communications from cable operators 
to subscribers to be delivered electronically, if they are sent to a 
verified email address and the cable operator complies with other 
consumer safeguards.\12\ These rules cover, among other things, 
information about channel deletions; service change notices; contact 
information for local franchise authorities; notice of charges for 
various services and service changes; and information about the basic 
service tier, broadcast signal availability, and consumer equipment 
compatibility.\13\ In addition, the NPRM tentatively concluded that we 
should adopt a new rule permitting electronic delivery of certain 
statutorily required subscriber privacy notifications. Section 631 of 
the Act requires a cable operator to ``provide notice in the form of a 
separate, written statement to such subscriber which clearly and 
conspicuously informs the subscriber of'' certain privacy protections. 
Section 338(i) of the Act imposes the same requirement on satellite 
providers, and section 653(c)(1)(A) of the Act imposes this requirement 
on Open Video System (OVS) providers.\14\ The NPRM sought comment on 
approaches for permitting electronic delivery of all of these written 
communications.\15\ The Commission also proposed to permit cable 
operators to reply to consumer requests or complaints by email in 
certain circumstances.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd 10755.
    \12\ Id. at 10759-10764, paras. 6-18.
    \13\ The general notice rules in Subpart T of Part 76 are 
Sec. Sec.  76.1601 (channel deletion/repositioning); 76.1602 (annual 
notices, which can already be sent via email pursuant to the 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, and signal quality complaint procedures/local 
franchise authority contact information); 76.1603 (rate and service 
change notices); 76.1604 (notice of charge for frequent change of 
service tiers); 76.1618 (basic tier information where applicable); 
76.1620 (list of broadcast signals not available without a converter 
box); and 76.1621 and 76.1622 (dealing with equipment compatibility, 
but see infra Section III.D, eliminating these sections).
    \14\ 47 U.S.C. 551(a)(1), 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a).
    \15\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10760, 10761-10764, paras. 8, 11-17.
    \16\ Id. at 10764-10765, paras. 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Finally, the NPRM proposed to eliminate Sec.  76.1621 of the 
Commission's rules,\17\ which requires cable operators to offer and 
provide upon request to subscribers equipment that will enable the 
simultaneous reception of multiple signals,\18\ and sought comment on 
how best to modernize, and the extent to which we should eliminate, 
Sec.  76.1622,\19\ which requires cable operators to provide a consumer 
education program on equipment and signal compatibility matters to 
subscribers upon initial subscription and annually thereafter.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. Sec.  76.1621.
    \18\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765-10766, para. 22.
    \19\ 47 CFR 76.1622.
    \20\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766-10767, paras 23-24. The NPRM also 
sought comment on how to update the requirement in Sec. Sec.  76.64 
and 76.44 of the Commission's rules that requires broadcast 
television stations to send carriage election notices via certified 
mail. Id. at 10755, 10767-10769, paras. 1, 25-27. That issue is not 
addressed in this Report and Order and will be addressed in a 
subsequent Report and Order in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    6. We adopt the Commission's proposal to permit electronic delivery 
of all general subscriber notices required under Subpart T, if they are 
sent to a verified email address and the cable operator complies with 
other consumer safeguards. In order to harmonize our existing customer 
notice rules with the statutory privacy notice obligations noted above, 
we extend the same verified email delivery option to those privacy 
notices.\21\ In addition, we adopt the proposal to allow cable 
operators to respond to consumer requests or billing dispute complaints 
by email, if the consumer used email to make the request or complaint 
or if the consumer specifies email as the preferred response method. 
Finally, we eliminate Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Appendix A, Final Rules (47 CFR 76.1600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Electronic Distribution of Notices to Subscribers

    7. We find verified email to be a reasonable means of delivering 
the general subscriber notices required under Subpart T,\22\ and adopt 
a rule to permit such delivery. This approach will ensure that 
consumers continue to receive required notices while also providing 
more flexibility for cable operators and helping the environment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 12.
    \23\ Verizon argues that ``LFAs should be barred from requiring 
paper delivery or imposing more stringent requirements for 
electronic delivery that are inconsistent with the regulations 
adopted by the Commission.'' Verizon Comments at 11-13. This 
proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding, and we decline to 
address it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Every commenter addressing the issue agrees that cable operators 
``should be allowed to use verified email'' \24\ for all Subpart T 
general customer notifications because ``consumers increasingly prefer 
. . . communicating electronically with their service providers'' \25\ 
and because it will ``reduce the economic and administrative burden'' 
of paper mailings.\26\ The record also indicates that these reduced 
paper mailings will save ``substantial amounts of paper annually,'' an 
environmental benefit that the Commission found compelling in the 2017 
Declaratory Ruling.\27\ Commenters also do not dispute the Commission's 
authority to permit electronic delivery of Subpart T subscriber 
notices.\28\ NCTA argues that we should go beyond verified emails, and 
permit cable operators to communicate with subscribers using any 
``reasonable'' electronic means.\29\ NCTA argues that ``means of 
communicating with customers will continue to evolve over time just as 
customer preferences will evolve'' and that ``[c]able operators should 
not be locked into a single mode of electronic communications . . . 
when these changes are foreseeable.'' \30\ NCTA suggests that any 
electronic method ``reasonably intended'' or ``reasonably

[[Page 66151]]

calculated'' to reach subscribers should be permissible.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NCTA Comments at 2; See also ACA Comments at 1-2, DISH 
Comments at 1, Verizon Comments at 1.
    \25\ AT&T Comments at 1.
    \26\ NCTA Comments at 1-2.
    \27\ Id. at 3-4, citing 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 
5269, para. 6.
    \28\ See, e.g., NCTA Comments at 5, AT&T Comments at 2.
    \29\ NCTA Comments at 7. See also NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex Parte 
at 1, n.1 (describing a meeting between NCTA, Comcast Corp., Charter 
Communications, Inc. (Charter), and FCC Media Bureau staff).
    \30\ NCTA Comments at 7 (internal citations omitted). See also 
generally NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex Parte.
    \31\ NCTA Comments at 2, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. We find it appropriate at this time to extend to all general 
Subpart T notices \32\ the same level of flexibility adopted in the 
2017 Declaratory Ruling and will permit these notices to be provided to 
subscribers via email sent to a verified email address, so long as the 
cable operator complies with certain consumer safeguards. In the 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, the Commission rejected the ``reasonably 
calculated'' standard, and we do not find any reason to change that 
conclusion here. We therefore decline to adopt NCTA's suggestion that 
we adopt such a standard in this proceeding.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 12.
    \33\ While we reject NCTA's suggested standard, we seek comment 
in the attached Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the 
feasibility of permitting additional means of electronic delivery of 
these notices to subscribers. See supra Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We will apply the same approach to electronic delivery 
uniformly across all Subpart T general notice rules, with one minor 
exception described below.\34\ The notice requirements contained in 
Subpart T stem from several different statutory provisions,\35\ and in 
the NPRM, the Commission asked whether it should take different 
approaches to modernizing the rules based on the varying sources of 
statutory authority and the content of the notices required.\36\ 
Several commenters contend that having varying standards would be 
problematic. Verizon notes that a ``mix-and-match-regime'' \37\ ``would 
simply cause consumer confusion and undermine the Commission's efforts 
to streamline the notification procedures.'' \38\ NCTA contends that 
``different treatment'' for different types of notices ``would 
unnecessarily inject confusion and complications into what otherwise is 
intended to be an effort to simplify, streamline, and modernize the 
process.'' \39\ We agree with these comments. After review of the 
record, we find that adopting a consistent approach, rather than 
requiring different approaches and decisions based on the content of 
the messages, is simpler and more intuitive for consumers, as well as 
more efficient for cable operators. To do otherwise risks confusing 
consumers who are understandably unlikely to be well versed in the 
variety of cable notices at issue. We also conclude that our approach 
satisfies the terms of each of the relevant statutory provisions.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See infra para. 13 (permitting paper-based weblinks for 
specific subparts of the annual notices required under Section 
76.1602).
    \35\ 47 U.S.C. 552(b) (providing the Commission with broad 
authority to ``establish standards by which cable operators may 
fulfill their customer service requirements,'' including a 
requirement relating to ``communications between the cable operator 
and the subscriber''); 47 U.S.C. 552(c) (stating that ``[a] cable 
operator may provide notice of service and rate changes to 
subscribers using any reasonable written means at its sole 
discretion''). The resulting Subpart T notice rules themselves are 
all very similar without being totally identical. For example, one 
requires that cable operators ``provide written notice'' (47 CFR 
76.1601), while another requires that operators ``shall notify such 
subscribers'' (47 CFR 76.1620) and a third requires that 
``[c]ustomers will be notified . . . in writing'' (47 CFR 76.1603).
    \36\ For instance, the NPRM: Tentatively concluded that we 
should allow broadcast signal deletion notices to be sent to a 
verified email unless a subscriber opts out (Id. at 10761-10762, 
para. 12, based on Section 76.1601's requirement that cable 
operators ``shall provide written notice''); sought comment on 
whether rate changes should be sent to a verified email address only 
after a subscriber opts in (Id. at 10762, para. 13, based on Section 
76.1603's requirement that ``[c]ustomers will be notified . . . in 
writing''); and sought comment on whether basic tier information 
could be provided simply by being posted on the cable operator's 
website (Id. at 10762-10763, para. 15, based on Section 76.1618's 
requirement that cable operators ``provide written notification'').
    \37\ Verizon Comments at 6.
    \38\ Verizon Reply at 3-4.
    \39\ NCTA Comments at 4-5. See also ACA Comments at 6 
(``subscribers benefit from a consistent approach to the delivery of 
electronic notices'').
    \40\ As discussed above, 47 U.S.C. 552(b) gives us broad 
authority to establish standards relating to ``communications 
between the cable operator and the subscriber,'' and Section Sec.  
552(c) gives an operator the choice of ``any reasonable written 
means at its sole discretion.'' We find that verified email is 
reasonable within this context. See also 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 
FCC Rcd at 5272, para. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We find that the general pro-consumer approach adopted in the 
2017 Declaratory Ruling with respect to Sec.  76.1602(b) electronic 
notices is appropriate for all general Subpart T notice rules.\41\ 
First, cable operators must send notices to a verified email address. 
This email address may be: (1) One that the subscriber has provided to 
the cable operator (and not vice versa) for purposes of receiving 
communication, (2) one that the subscriber regularly uses to 
communicate with the cable operator, or (3) one that has been confirmed 
by the subscriber as an appropriate vehicle for the delivery of 
notices.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10761-10762, paras. 11-12, 14. See also 
ACA Comments at 5. Although it supports the use of electronic 
delivery, ACA argues that any change to our rules must not 
``increase the odds of customers not receiving notices,'' and 
therefore ``supports application of the consumer safeguards adopted 
in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling,'' including the strict definition of 
what constitutes a ``verified email,'' to additional Subpart T 
notice requirements.
    \42\ Id. at 10761, para. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Second, to enable subscribers to opt for paper delivery at any 
time, cable operators must ``include an opt-out telephone number that 
is clearly and prominently presented to customers in the body of the 
originating email that delivers the notices, so that it is readily 
identifiable as an opt-out option.'' \43\ ACA advocates a ``uniform 
`opt-out' approach,'' \44\ and no commenter supports an ``opt-in'' 
regime for any notice type, arguing that the burden of an opt-in regime 
would ``defeat the purpose of the modernization effort'' \45\ and is 
``unnecessary for these types of routine notices.'' \46\ As in the 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, we agree that an opt-in requirement is unnecessary. 
The information these notices provide is generic in nature and does not 
contain confidential information specific to an individual subscriber. 
Indeed, it is already publicly available in many cases on a cable 
operator's or local franchising authority's website.\47\ Commenters 
support allowing subscribers to request paper copies of any notice, and 
none dispute the need for an opt-out, paper notice option.\48\ Some 
commenters argue for greater flexibility with respect to the opt-out 
mechanism provided, claiming that they should not be required to offer 
an opt-out telephone number and should be permitted to offer 
subscribers other opt-out methods instead.\49\ While the NPRM asked 
about the use of an opt-out electronic link as an alternative to a 
phone number, we conclude that there is no reason to deviate from the 
approach adopted in

[[Page 66152]]

the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, which found that providing an opt-out 
telephone number ``would be the means most universally accessible to 
customers that prefer not to receive their notices electronically.'' 
\50\ Verizon argues that we should not ``limit the [opt-out] options 
available to MVPDs and subscribers,'' \51\ and we agree. While 
providing an opt-out telephone number is a minimum requirement, we 
emphasize that cable operators may choose to offer additional choices 
to their customers that are clearly and prominently presented in the 
body of the originating email.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5275, para. 10.
    \44\ ACA Reply at 2.
    \45\ NCTA Comments at 4.
    \46\ Verizon Reply at 3.
    \47\ As AT&T notes, it is important to clarify that we are 
exempting all of the notices approved for electronic delivery in 
this Order from ``the consent requirements of the E-Sign Act.'' AT&T 
Comments at 5. Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), information that a statute or 
regulation requires be provided to a consumer in writing can be 
delivered electronically if the sender follows all of the E-Sign Act 
requirements, including the requirement that a consumer ``has 
affirmatively consented.'' 15 U.S.C. 7001(c)(1). However, the E-Sign 
Act preserves a federal regulatory agency's rulemaking authority, 
allows federal agencies to interpret the E-Sign Act with respect to 
a statute that it implements, and allows a federal agency to exempt 
a specified category or type of record from the consent requirements 
in the E-Sign Act ``if such exemption is necessary to eliminate a 
substantial burden on electronic commerce and will not increase the 
material risk of harm to consumers.'' 15 U.S.C. 7004(b), (d). As 
discussed above, commenters argue persuasively that it would be 
impractical and unnecessary for MVPDs to attempt to receive 
permission from each individual customer prior to initiating 
electronic delivery of these general notices. Therefore, we exempt 
all the notices referenced in new Sec.  76.1600 of our rules from 
the consent requirements of the E-Sign Act. See Appendix A, Final 
Rules (47 CFR 76.1600).
    \48\ NCTA Comments at 8; NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex Parte at 2; ACA 
Comments at 5.
    \49\ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Verizon Comments at 7-8.
    \50\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 10.
    \51\ Verizon Comments at 7.
    \52\ See 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. For information delivered via verified email, cable operators 
may include either the notice itself or a weblink to the notice. Paper 
notifications must include the full text of the required notices, with 
the narrow exception discussed below. Commenters support the NPRM's 
tentative conclusion that it would be reasonable for cable operators to 
provide a website link to an electronic notice, rather than the notice 
itself, so long as the link remains active until superseded by a 
subsequent notice.\53\ We adopt this approach. NCTA advocates that we 
provide additional flexibility, arguing that a website link to this 
information should be considered sufficient even if it were only 
printed on a paper bill or notice.\54\ We find that, with respect to 
most Subpart T notices,\55\ printing website addresses on paper 
communications, directing subscribers to the notice online, would not 
be a reasonable means of delivery. As stated in the 2017 Declaratory 
Ruling, we continue to believe that this approach to providing notice 
``could create an undue risk that subscribers will not receive the 
required notices.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10762, para. 14 (citing 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 11, n.46). For 
commenter support, see e.g., NTCA Comments at 3; ACA Comments at 6.
    \54\ NCTA Comments at 8; NCTA April 30, 2018 Ex Parte at 2. See 
also NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10763-4, para. 16 (discussing the 
possibility of placing a website link inside a paper bill).
    \55\ See supra note 12 and infra section III.B, but see infra 
para. 14 (discussing variable and cable system-specific information 
about channel lineups and rates).
    \56\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10763-10764, para. 16 (citing 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. With respect to the rate and channel listing elements of the 
annual notice, however,\57\ we will permit cable operators to provide a 
weblink to the subscriber, whether the notice is delivered by paper or 
in a verified email.\58\ We allow cable operators more flexibility with 
regard to this particular information because it is more specific to 
the actual location of the subscriber and it changes more frequently 
than the more generally-applicable information required in other 
Subpart T rules.\59\ As Charter explains, these portions of the annual 
notices are uniquely unsuited to paper delivery because ``the long 
lead-time involved in preparing, printing, and mailing . . . millions 
of copies'' means this information ``often becomes outdated before it 
even reaches the customer.'' \60\ We believe that the benefits to 
subscribers in being able to access the most accurate and up-to-date 
information regarding their rates and channel line-ups outweighs the 
burden of requiring them to take an additional step to access this 
rapidly changing information.\61\ To ensure that subscribers are aware 
of and have easy access to this information, we require any cable 
operator taking advantage of this flexibility to display prominently, 
on the front or first page of its printed annual notice, website links 
in a form that is short, simple, and easy to remember, such as 
``www.[homepage].com/Rates'' or ``www.[homepage].com/Channels.'' In the 
same location, the cable operator must prominently display a single 
phone number to call to opt for a paper version of all information 
available via both weblinks, as proposed by Charter.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 47 CFR 76.1602(b)(2), (5), (7), and (8).
    \58\ See generally Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte and NCTA 
October 31, 2018 Ex Parte.
    \59\ See, e.g., Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte (``For 
example, in Q1 of 2018, Charter had 84 programming changes, and, of 
those, 51 affected between 24%-100% of [its] channel line-ups'').
    \60\ Id. Charter maintains that allowing this information to be 
provided via a weblink to all customers would enable consumers to 
receive ``the most up-to-date and targeted information about their 
rates and channel line-ups.'' Id. Charter also claims that its 
customers already regularly obtain this information through its 
website. Id. Specifically, Charter explains that its customers can 
obtain up-to-date and targeted rate and channel lineup information 
through a Charter ``web page that asks for their zip code and 
address.'' Id.
    \61\ We find that there are not corresponding benefits to 
subscribers in making the less targeted Subpart T notices available 
in this manner. Furthermore, while Section 76.1602 requires the 
sending of a complete list of channels and specific rate information 
once per year, Sec. Sec.  76.1601 and 76.1603 of our rules 
separately require that cable operators notify subscribers of any 
changes to this information. 47 CFR 76.1601 and 76.1603. Notices 
issued pursuant to these rules are distinct from those sent under 
Section 76.1602, because they are intended to provide targeted and 
immediate information about a single event rather than a 
comprehensive catalog of information. We note that the Commission 
intends to further address cable operators' obligations to notify 
subscribers of changes in channel positions, including deletions of 
channels, under Sec. Sec.  76.1601 and/or 76.1603(b) in a later 
proceeding.
    \62\ Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte at 2. Any subscriber who 
opts for paper delivery of Section 76.1602 annual notices after 
receiving the entire notice electronically must be provided with the 
entire notice on paper. An operator would not be permitted to merely 
send printed rate and channel weblinks to such a subscriber, who has 
already demonstrated a clear preference for printed annual notice 
information. See infra Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We will not, however, permit notices to be simply placed online 
without any separate subscriber notifications. The NPRM sought comment 
on, but expressed concern about, permitting a narrow class of notices 
to be made available this way.\63\ Under such an approach, subscribers 
would need to not only be independently aware of the existence of the 
notices, but also actively seek them out without any prompting from the 
cable operator. Although one commenter supports this approach,\64\ we 
decline to approve it because we find that it creates an unacceptably 
high risk that subscribers will never see the required notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10762-10763, paras. 15-16. 
Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on whether information 
required under Sec. Sec.  76.1602 (annual notice) and 76.1618 (basic 
tier information) could be provided to subscribers by posting online 
instead of providing such notice to subscribers via U.S. mail or 
electronic delivery to a verified email address. Id. Under this 
approach, no link, reminder, or other information would have been 
sent to subscribers to indicate that there were new notices 
available for their review. The weblink approach approved above, 
however, requires timely and active provision of notifications to 
subscribers either in a paper notice or through a verified email. 
Unlike the specific annual rate and channel information discussed 
above, see infra, para. 14, the record provides no compelling reason 
for treating the full annual notice or a subscriber's basic tier 
information any differently than other Subpart T notices.
    \64\ Verizon Comments at 8-10 (also arguing for the sufficiency 
of placing notices in an ``electronic message center'' that is 
accessible only via a subscriber's television screen). We find that 
the benefits Verizon ascribes to the online-only posting of this 
information, such as around-the-clock consumer accessibility and 
reduced costs for cable operators, also can be achieved by posting 
the notices online and emailing links to subscribers. See supra, 
para. 13; see also Verizon Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Privacy Notifications

    16. We will also permit delivery via verified email of the privacy 
notices that MVPDs must send to subscribers. As noted above, the 
requirements on cable operators, satellite providers, and Open Video 
System providers to supply privacy notifications are statutory.\65\ In 
order to harmonize our existing customer notice rules with the privacy 
notice obligations, our new Subpart T rule clarifies that such notices 
may be delivered by MVPDs via paper or verified email just like general 
Subpart

[[Page 66153]]

T notices. Every commenter who addresses privacy notification issues 
agrees with the Commission's tentative conclusion that MVPDs should be 
allowed to send these notices electronically. AT&T ``urges the 
Commission to adopt its tentative conclusion that cable operators, DBS 
providers, and Open Video System (OVS) providers should be permitted to 
deliver privacy notifications to subscribers via verified email 
addresses,'' and that ``[n]othing in sections 631, 338 or 653 limits 
the Commission's authority to specify the manner by which these classes 
of providers may deliver such notices to their subscribers.'' \66\ DISH 
also supports the tentative conclusion, arguing that ``[e]lectronic 
delivery of these notices is consistent with how certain other relevant 
customer communications are delivered and therefore would provide 
consumers convenient access to this information.'' \67\ We agree that 
permitting verified email delivery of this information, just like we do 
for existing Subpart T cable consumer notifications, is beneficial for 
both consumers and MVPDs and will serve the public interest.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 47 U.S.C. 551(a)(1), 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a).
    \66\ AT&T Comments at 2. See also NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10764, 
para. 18.
    \67\ DISH Comments at 2-3. See also ACA Comments at 3-6, Verizon 
Comments at 4-5, NCTA Comments at 5.
    \68\ The privacy provisions require cable operators, satellite 
providers, and Open Video System providers to ``provide notice in 
the form of a separate, written statement.'' Notices that conform to 
the requirements established in this Order will also comply with 
these statutory requirements. See supra note 38, citing 2017 
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5272, para. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Responses to Consumer Requests or Complaints by Email

    17. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to allow cable operators to 
respond to certain consumer requests or billing dispute complaints by 
email, if the consumer used email to make the request or complaint or 
if the consumer specifies email as the preferred delivery method in the 
request or complaint.\69\ Sections 76.1614 and 76.1619 of Subpart T 
require written responses to requests or complaints.\70\ Specifically, 
Section 76.1614 requires cable operators to respond in writing within 
30 days to any written request by any person for the identification of 
the signals carried on its system in fulfillment of the must-carry 
requirements of Sec.  76.56.\71\ Section 76.1619 requires cable 
operators to respond to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 
days if there is a billing dispute.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10764-10765, paras. 19-21. See also 
Appendix A, Final Rules.
    \70\ 47 CFR 76.1614, 76.1619.
    \71\ Id. Sec.  76.1614.
    \72\ Id. Sec.  76.1619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. All commenters that address this proposal support it, 
expressing their belief that the Commission should permit ``MVPDs to 
communicate by email with subscribers who agree to the use of email for 
inquiries and complaints.'' \73\ ACA agrees with the NPRM statement 
that adopting this proposal would ``allow cable operators to respond 
more efficiently to requests and complaints.'' \74\ ACA also argues 
that doing so would enable consumers to receive these communications 
``by their preferred method'' and ``extend many of the same benefits 
provided by the Commission's decision to allow electronic delivery of 
subscriber notices.'' \75\ Verizon notes that today's ``consumers are 
accustomed to email as a routine form of communications[,]'' and 
adopting this proposal would allow the Commission's rules to ``reflect 
that reality.'' \76\ Further supporting the proposal, Verizon also 
notes that ``[t]he Commission has already determined that use of email 
for communications about actions of regulated entities is permissible, 
for example, in formal complaint proceedings.'' \77\ NCTA also suggests 
that adopting this proposal ``would be consistent with consumer 
expectations'' that ``contact[ing] cable operators by electronic means 
or provid[ing] an email address in such communications'' will result in 
``a response via email.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Verizon Reply Comments at 2; see also ACA Comments at 2; 
ACA Reply Comments at 6 (stating that ``[n]o commenters have 
objected'' to this proposal); AT&T Reply Comments at 1 (emphasizing 
that ``[n]o commenter opposes'' this proposal); NCTA Comments at 10; 
Verizon Comments at 2.
    \74\ ACA Comments at 7.
    \75\ ACA Comments at 7-8.
    \76\ Verizon Reply Comments at 5.
    \77\ Verizon Comments at 10 (citing 47 CFR 1.735(f)).
    \78\ NCTA Comments at 11. NCTA also suggests that the Commission 
expand the proposal in the NPRM to allow cable operators to respond 
via email to consumers that have ``provided an email address on 
complaint submissions via the Commission's Consumer Help Center 
website (unless the consumer expressly specifies a different 
preferred delivery method).'' NCTA Comments at 10. This proposal is 
outside the scope of the NPRM, and we therefore decline to address 
it in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. As we stated in the NPRM, we believe that permitting cable 
operators to respond electronically using the same method as the 
consumer or the method chosen by the consumer gives both parties the 
opportunity to communicate via their method of choice and will allow 
cable operators to respond more efficiently to requests and complaints. 
Therefore, we revise Sec. Sec.  76.1614 and 76.1619 and will allow 
cable operators to respond to consumer requests or billing dispute 
complaints by email where the consumer either used email to make the 
request or complaint or specified email as the preferred method of 
response in the request or complaint.

D. Other Subpart T Requirements

    20. We will eliminate Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622 of our rules. 
The NPRM proposed to delete Sec.  76.1621,\79\ which requires certain 
cable operators to offer subscribers ``special equipment that will 
enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals.'' \80\ We agree 
with the commenters that, given today's digital technologies, it is no 
longer necessary to promote the ``special equipment'' referred to in 
this rule. In addition, the NPRM sought comment on how to update Sec.  
76.1622 to reflect the current state of technology, and whether any 
part of the rule is ``no longer necessary given changes in technology 
and, therefore, should be eliminated.'' \81\ Commenters make a 
convincing case that changes in technology and consumer awareness have 
rendered the entire rule ``no longer necessary,'' and that it should be 
eliminated in its entirety. We take these actions in light of changes 
in the television marketplace and consumer equipment technology since 
the rules were originally adopted and, in so doing, reduce burdens on 
cable operators.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765-66, para. 22.
    \80\ 47 CFR 76.1621.
    \81\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766-67, para. 23.
    \82\ Charter also proposes ``clarifications'' to 47 CFR 
76.1603(b) and the elimination of Sec.  76.1603(c) and (d), a 
proposal which was opposed by Northwest Broadcasting Inc 
(Northwest). Charter Comments at 3, 6; Letter from Dennis P. Corbett 
and Jessica DeSimone Gyllstrom, Telecommunications Law Professionals 
PLLC, to the FCC, MB Docket No. 17-317, at 1 (filed Apr. 20, 2018) 
(Northwest Ex Parte). As Northwest points out, and Charter 
acknowledges, these proposals are beyond the scope of this 
proceeding. Therefore, we decline to address them. Northwest Ex 
Parte; Charter Comments at 1, n. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Section 76.1621 requires cable operators ``that use scrambling, 
encryption or similar technologies'' to offer and provide upon request 
to subscribers ``special equipment that will enable the simultaneous 
reception of multiple signals.'' \83\ The offer of special equipment 
must be made to new subscribers at the time they subscribe and to all 
subscribers at least once each year.\84\ This rule was adopted in 1994 
pursuant to section 624A of the Act,\85\ which Congress enacted to 
resolve ``compatibility problems that arise between the provision of 
cable service and current consumer electronics

[[Page 66154]]

equipment.'' \86\ These problems included ``difficulties in the use of 
VCRs to record programming and in the operation of special features of 
TV receivers such as `Picture-in-Picture.' '' \87\ The Commission 
adopted the requirement that cable operators offer subscribers special 
equipment with multiple tuners to address ``cases where cable systems 
use scrambling technology and set-top boxes that do not deliver all 
authorized signals `in the clear''' such that subscribers need 
``supplemental equipment to enable the operation of extended features 
and functions of TV receivers and VCRs that make simultaneous use of 
multiple signals.'' \88\ As the Commission noted in the NPRM, consumers 
today widely use digital video recorders (DVRs), rather than VCRs or 
television receivers, for recording features, and ``picture-in-
picture'' features in television receivers are not prevalent.\89\ 
Accordingly, the Commission proposed to eliminate Sec.  76.1621, 
tentatively concluding that, given today's digital technologies, it is 
no longer necessary to promote the ``special equipment that will enable 
the simultaneous reception of multiple signals'' referred to in the 
rule.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 47 CFR 76.1621. See also supra para. 5.
    \84\ Id. at Sec.  76.1621(a).
    \85\ 47 U.S.C. 544a.
    \86\ Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Compatibility 
Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 8495, 8495, para. 3 (1993).
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Compatibility 
Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, First 
Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1981, 1989-90, para. 47 (1994). See also 
Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer 
Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Compatibility Between Cable 
Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4121 (1996).
    \89\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10765-66, para. 22.
    \90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Section 76.1622 of our rules requires cable operators to 
provide a consumer education program on equipment and signal 
compatibility matters to their subscribers in writing at the time they 
subscribe and at least once a year thereafter.\91\ Specifically, it 
requires cable operators to educate their customers about compatibility 
issues that may arise with respect to TV receivers, VCRs, and remote 
controls. This provision was enacted pursuant to Congress's directive 
in section 624A that the Commission adopt rules requiring cable 
operators ``offering channels whose reception requires a converter box 
. . . to notify subscribers that they may be unable to benefit from the 
special functions of their television receivers and video cassette 
recorders.'' \92\ As discussed in the NPRM, parties filing comments in 
the Media Modernization proceeding argued that a requirement to educate 
consumers on the interoperability of VCRs no longer makes sense as 
concerns about TV receiver and VCR compatibility are no longer relevant 
to consumers today.\93\ Accordingly, we sought comment in the NPRM on 
whether there are parts of Sec.  76.1622 that should be eliminated or 
modified in light of changes to technology since the rule was 
adopted.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 47 CFR 76.1622.
    \92\ 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2)(B).
    \93\ NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 10766-67, para. 23.
    \94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. On March 23, 2018, after the NPRM was adopted, Congress revised 
section 624A to eliminate certain deadlines in that provision for 
Commission action, which have long since passed.\95\ We conclude that 
Congress' recent revisions to section 624A do not limit the 
Commission's authority to eliminate these rules. Congress retained the 
language in section 624A(b)(1), providing that the Commission shall 
adopt regulations ``as are necessary'' to assure compatibility between 
television receivers and video cassette recorders and cable 
systems.\96\ In addition, Congress did not revise section 624A(c)(2), 
which provides that the ``regulations prescribed by the Commission 
under this section shall include such regulations as are necessary'' to 
achieve certain objectives.\97\ Finally, Congress did not revise 
section 624A(d), which provides that the ``Commission shall 
periodically review and, if necessary, modify the regulations issued 
pursuant to this section in light of any actions taken in response to 
such regulations and to reflect improvements and changes in cable 
systems, television receivers, video cassette recorders, and similar 
technology.'' \98\ These provisions give the Commission ample authority 
to eliminate Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622 in light of the changes in 
technology since the rules were adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-
141, at Division P, Title IV, Sec.  402(i)(10), 132 Stat. 348 
(2018). Congress removed the language in Section 624A(b)(1) that 
required the Commission to issue a report to Congress on 
compatibility within ``1 year after October 5, 1992'' and to adopt 
rules regarding compatibility ``within 180 days'' after the 
submission of the report to Congress.
    \96\ 47 U.S.C. 544A(b)(1).
    \97\ 47 U.S.C. 544A(c)(2) (emphasis added).
    \98\ 47 U.S.C. 544A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. All commenters that address the issue support eliminating Sec.  
76.1621, arguing generally that advances in technology since the VCR 
have made the rule unnecessary and irrelevant.\99\ In fact, NCTA notes 
that VCRs are no longer being manufactured today.\100\ ACA argues that, 
to the extent that consumers continue to use VCRs to record television 
programming, ``they are surely aware by now of any lingering 
compatibility issues and have long since obtained the equipment 
necessary to operate those devices to their satisfaction.'' \101\ We 
agree with commenters that Sec.  76.1621 is no longer necessary in 
light of changes in technology since that rule was adopted and, 
therefore, that it is appropriate to eliminate that rule as proposed in 
the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Verizon Comments at 10-11 (Section 76.1621 requires notices 
to subscribers regarding compatibility between cable systems and 
equipment that is ``prehistoric from the standpoint of 2018.''), ACA 
Comments at 9 (technical issues that gave rise to the requirements 
in Section 76.1621 ``have dissipated''), NCTA Comments at 11 (``the 
rule no longer serves any legitimate purpose and should be 
eliminated''). See also ACA Reply Comments at 7 and Verizon Reply 
comments at 4-5.
    \100\ NCTA Comments at 11.
    \101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Commenters make a similar argument with respect to Sec.  
76.1622. Specifically, ACA, Verizon, and NCTA argue that this section 
should also be eliminated because it requires cable operators to 
educate consumers about antiquated technology.\102\ No commenters 
indicate that continued application of this rule is beneficial to 
consumers, or support its retention. NCTA argues that ``remote 
control'' is the only technology referenced in Sec.  76.1622 that is 
still in ``widespread use,'' and that ``[c]able operators have every 
incentive in this competitive marketplace to provide their customers 
with the information they need to obtain service using a variety of 
different devices.'' \103\ We agree with commenters that Sec.  76.1622 
is no longer necessary in light of changes in technology and the 
marketplace since that rule was adopted and, therefore, it is 
appropriate to eliminate the rule in its entirety. Although we 
recognize that remote control units are still widely used, we conclude 
that a notice requirement about the availability of third-party remotes 
is no longer necessary. Third-party remotes have become widely 
available in the 24 years since this rule was originally adopted and 
can be easily purchased from many retail outlets, including big box 
stores and online. Furthermore, now that they have been in existence 
for many years, consumers

[[Page 66155]]

are generally aware that they may purchase such remotes. Finally, there 
is no evidence in the record that the lack of awareness about 
compatibility that spurred the original rule is an issue today, given 
the plethora of remote controls available in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ACA Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 11, and NCTA 
Comments at 12. See also ACA Reply Comments at 7 and Verizon Reply 
Comments at 4-5.
    \103\ NCTA Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),\104\ an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.\105\ The Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on 
the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. We received 
no comments specifically directed toward the IRFA. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America 
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
    \105\ See In the Matter of Electronic Delivery of MVPD 
Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10755 (2017) (NPRM).
    \106\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
    28. In this Report and Order, we modernize our rules regarding 
certain notices required to be provided by MVPDs in writing to their 
subscribers to permit the provision of these notifications via verified 
email, if the cable operator complies with certain consumer safeguards. 
Specifically, we extend this flexibility to Sec. Sec.  76.1601, 
76.1602, 76.1603, 76.1604, 76.1618, and 76.1620, as well as subscriber 
privacy notifications required pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 
653 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In addition, we 
eliminate Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622 of our rules to reflect the 
current state of technology and the market. Finally, we authorize cable 
operators to respond to consumer requests and complaints by email in 
certain circumstances. These steps further our continuing efforts to 
modernize our regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements that can 
impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (MB 
2017) (initiating a review of rules applicable to media entities to 
eliminate or modify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary or 
unduly burdensome).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    30. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
31. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\108\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \109\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\110\ A small business concern is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\111\ Below, we provide a description of such 
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small 
entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \109\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \110\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (cross-referencing the definition of 
``small-business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \111\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, 
for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, 
a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide.\112\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but 11 are small under this size standard.\113\ In 
addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable 
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.\114\ Industry data indicate 
that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000 
subscribers, and an additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 
subscribers.\115\ Thus, under this second size standard, the Commission 
believes that most cable systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size 
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or 
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh 
Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
    \113\ These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & 
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8 
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications 
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems 
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
    \114\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
    \115\ Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 
2008, ``U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,'' page F-2 (data 
current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for 
which classifying data were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' \116\ The Commission has determined 
that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed 
a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total 
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in 
the aggregate.\117\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable 
operators nationwide, all but 10 are small under this size 
standard.\118\ We note that the Commission neither requests nor 
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,\119\ and 
therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable 
system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn.1-3.
    \117\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count 
for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC 
Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
    \118\ These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & 
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8 
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications 
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems 
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
    \119\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's 
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 
pursuant to Sec.  76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide 
subscription services.\120\ The open video system framework was 
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options 
for the provision of video programming services by local

[[Page 66156]]

exchange carriers.\121\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for 
the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. 
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\122\ OVS falls 
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, 
which is ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' \123\ The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.\124\ To gauge small 
business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on data 
currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2012. According 
to that source, there were 3,117 firms that in 2012 were Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,059 operated with less than 
1,000 employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be 
considered small.\125\ In addition, we note that the Commission has 
certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.\126\ 
Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only 
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.\127\ 
The Commission does not have financial or employment information 
regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not 
yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may 
qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes that it has 
certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and some 
of these are currently providing service.\128\ Affiliates of 
Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to 
operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other 
areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify 
as a small business entity. Little financial information is available 
for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not 
yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS 
service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission 
concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify 
as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies 
adopted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
    \121\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3)-(4). See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC 
Rcd at 606, para. 135.
    \122\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
    \123\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, http://www.census.gov/naics/2012/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
    \124\ 13 CFR 201.121, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
    \125\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none.
    \126\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
    \127\ See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07 para. 135. 
BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-
based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a 
single network.
    \128\ See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/current-filings-certification-open-video-systems (current as of July 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known 
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video 
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without 
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple 
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial 
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV 
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census 
category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers,'' \129\ which was 
developed for small wireline firms.\130\ Under this category, the SBA 
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\131\ Census data for 2012 indicate that in that year there 
were 3,117 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications 
carriers. Of that 3,117, 3,059 operated with 999 or fewer employees. 
Based on this data, we estimate that a majority of operators of SMATV/
PCO companies were small under the applicable SBA size standard.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
    \130\ Although SMATV systems often use DBS video programming as 
part of their service package to subscribers, they are not included 
in Section 340's definition of ``satellite carrier.'' See 47 U.S.C. 
340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6).
    \131\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
    \132\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at 
the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census 
category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the 
wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.\133\ The SBA determines that a wireline business is 
small if it has fewer than 1500 employees.\134\ Census data for 2012 
indicate that 3,117 wireline companies were operational during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees.\135\ Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of 
wireline firms are small under the applicable standard. However, 
currently only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great 
deal of capital for operation: DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH 
Network.\136\ DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that 
are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Accordingly, we 
must conclude that internally developed FCC data are persuasive that in 
general DBS service is provided only by large firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers,'' http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
    \134\ NAICS Code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201.
    \135\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, 
Information: Subject Series--Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of 
Firms for the U.S.: 2012; 2012 Economic Census of the United States, 
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
    \136\ See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the 
Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203, 
Fifteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10507, para. 27 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    39. The rule changes adopted in the Report and Order will reduce 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for MVPDs 
which, prior to our action today, were required to provide certain 
notifications to subscribers in writing on paper. The Report and Order 
permits provision of these notifications electronically if the cable 
operator complies with certain consumer safeguards. This action will 
reduce the costs and burdens of providing such notices. In addition, 
the Report and Order eliminates Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622 of our 
rules to more closely reflect current technology and the state of the 
market. Finally, the Report and Order also authorizes cable operators 
to respond to consumer requests and

[[Page 66157]]

complaints by email in certain circumstances. The Commission 
anticipates that these changes will lead to a long-term reduction in 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on all 
cable operators, including small entities.
40. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
    41. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
small entities.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. The Commission has found that electronic delivery of notices 
will greatly ease the burden of complying with notification 
requirements for MVPDs, including small MVPDs. The NPRM proposed to 
allow written communications from cable operators (and in some case 
satellite carriers and OVS operators) to subscribers to be sent instead 
to a verified email address, subject to certain consumer protections, 
and the Report and Order adopts this proposal. This approach reduces 
the burdens associated with providing these notifications. Overall, we 
believe the Report and Order appropriately balances the interests of 
the public against the interests of the entities who are subject to the 
rules, including those that are small entities.
43. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule
    44. None.
    45. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.--This Order contains 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The requirements will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies will be invited to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish 
a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking 
these comments. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on 
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We have described 
impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most 
businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA above.
    46. Congressional Review Act.--The Commission will send a copy of 
this Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    47. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 325, 338, 624A, 631, 632, and 653 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
154(j), 325, 338, 544A, 551, and 573, the Report and Order is adopted 
and will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.
    48. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby 
amended and such rule amendments shall be effective January 25, 2019, 
except for Sec.  76.1600 and amendments to Sec. Sec.  76.1614 and 
76.1619, which are delayed. We will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of those amendments.
    49. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    50. It is further ordered that the Commission will send a copy of 
the Report and Order in a report to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal 
employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 
521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 
549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.


Sec.  76.630   [Amended]

0
2. Section 76.630 is amended by removing Notes 1 and 2.

0
3. Add Sec.  76.1600 to subpart T to read as follows:


Sec.  76.1600  Electronic delivery of notices.

    (a) Written information provided by cable operators to subscribers 
or customers pursuant to Sec. Sec.  76.1601, 76.1602, 76.1603, 76.1604, 
76.1618, and 76.1620 of this Subpart T, as well as subscriber privacy 
notifications required by cable operators, satellite providers, and 
open video systems pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the 
Communications Act, may be delivered electronically by email to any 
subscriber who has not opted out of electronic delivery under paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section if the entity:
    (1) Sends the notice to the subscriber's or customer's verified 
email address;
    (2) Provides either the entirety of the written information or a 
weblink to the written information in the notice; and
    (3) Includes, in the body of the notice, a telephone number that is 
clearly and prominently presented to subscribers so that it is readily 
identifiable as an opt-out mechanism that will allow subscribers to 
continue to receive paper copies of the written material.
    (b) For purposes of this section, a verified email address is 
defined as:
    (1) An email address that the subscriber has provided to the cable 
operator (and not vice versa) for purposes of receiving communication;
    (2) An email address that the subscriber regularly uses to 
communicate with the cable operator; or
    (3) An email address that has been confirmed by the subscriber as 
an appropriate vehicle for the delivery of notices.
    (c) Cable operators that provide written Subpart T notices via 
paper copy may provide certain portions of the Sec.  76.1602 annual 
notices electronically, to any subscriber who has not opted out of 
electronic delivery under paragraphs (a)(3) or (c)(3) of this section, 
by prominently displaying the following on the front or first page of 
the printed annual notice:

[[Page 66158]]

    (1) A weblink in a form that is short, simple, and easy to 
remember, leading to written information required to be provided 
pursuant to Sec.  76.1602(b)(2), (7), and (8);
    (2) A weblink in a form that is short, simple, and easy to 
remember, leading to written information required to be provided 
pursuant to Sec.  76.1602(b)(5); and
    (3) A telephone number that is readily identifiable as an opt-out 
mechanism that will allow subscribers to continue to receive paper 
copies of the entire annual notice.
    (d) If the conditions for electronic delivery in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section are not met, or if a subscriber opts out of 
electronic delivery, the written material must be delivered by paper 
copy to the subscriber's physical address.

0
4. Revise Sec.  76.1614 to read as follows:


Sec.  76.1614   Identification of must-carry signals.

    A cable operator shall respond in writing within 30 days to any 
written request by any person for the identification of the signals 
carried on its system in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements of 
Sec.  76.56. The required written response may be delivered by email, 
if the consumer used email to make the request or complaint directly to 
the cable operator, or if the consumer specifies email as the preferred 
delivery method in the request or complaint.

0
5. Section 76.1619 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  76.1619   Information on subscriber bills.

* * * * *
    (b) In case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond 
to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 days. The required 
response may be delivered by email, if the consumer used email to make 
the request or complaint directly to the cable operator, or if the 
consumer specifies email as the preferred delivery method in the 
request or complaint.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622  [Removed and Reserved]

0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  76.1621 and 76.1622.

[FR Doc. 2018-27601 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>