[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2119-2130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00151]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket Nos. 17-317, 17-105; FCC 17-168]


Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications; Modernization of 
Media Regulation Initiative

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) addresses ways to modernize certain notice provisions in 
the Commission's rules governing multichannel video and cable 
television service.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 15, 2018; reply comments 
are due on or before March 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 17-
317, 17-105, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93d5d0d0a6a3a7d3f5f0f0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c98f8a8afcf9fd89afaaaae7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Maria Mullarkey of the Policy Division, Media 
Bureau at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#125f73607b733c5f677e7e736079776b527471713c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="024f63706b632c4f776e6e637069677b426461612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>, or (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-168, adopted and released on December 
14, 2017. The full text of this document is available electronically 
via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-168A1.docx. 
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, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street SW, CY-A257, 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" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8c8989dfdadeaa8c8989c48d859c">[email protected]</a> 
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we address ways to 
modernize certain notice provisions in part 76 of the Federal 
Communications Commission's rules governing multichannel video and 
cable television service. First, we seek comment on proposals to 
modernize the rules in subpart T of part 76 (subpart T),\1\ which sets 
forth notice requirements applicable to cable

[[Page 2120]]

operators. In particular, we propose to allow various types of written 
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. We also 
tentatively conclude that subscriber privacy notifications required 
pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the Act), may be delivered electronically to a 
verified email address, subject to consumer safeguards. In addition, we 
propose to permit cable operators to reply to consumer requests or 
complaints by email in certain circumstances. Second, we seek comment 
on how to update the requirement in Sec. Sec.  76.64 and 76.66 of the 
Commission's rules that requires broadcast television stations to send 
carriage election notices via certified mail. With this proceeding, we 
continue our efforts to modernize our regulations and reduce 
unnecessary requirements that can impede competition and innovation in 
the media marketplace.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1630.
    \2\ See Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (2017) (initiating a 
review of rules applicable to media entities to eliminate or modify 
regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Subpart T Cable Notices. Subpart T regulates various aspects of 
cable operators' communications with subscribers as well as with other 
parties, including television broadcast stations and the Commission.\3\ 
In 1999, the Commission revised and streamlined the cable television 
notice, public file, and recordkeeping requirements contained 
throughout part 76 of the Commission's rules, and as part of this 
reorganization, it created a new subpart T for notice requirements.\4\ 
Among other requirements, subpart T requires cable operators to 
communicate specified information about various topics to their 
subscribers in writing, including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Subpart T refers to ``subscribers,'' ``customers,'' and 
``consumers'' interchangeably. See, e.g., 47 CFR 76.1602(b), 
76.1603(b), 76.1622. In the NPRM, we use the term ``subscribers'' 
for consistency, but it includes both ``customers'' and 
``consumers'' as used in subpart T.
    \4\ See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Cable 
Television Services Part 76 Public File and Notice Requirements, 
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 4653 (1999); Second Report and Order, 
16 FCC Rcd 19773 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals (47 CFR 
76.1601): Requires cable operators to provide written notice to 
subscribers if they are deleting a broadcast television station from 
carriage or repositioning that station.
    <bullet> Customer service--general information (47 CFR 76.1602): 
Requires cable operators to provide written information to subscribers 
at the time of installation, at least annually, and at any time upon 
request about: Products and services offered; prices and options for 
programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and 
other services; installation and service maintenance policies; 
instructions on how to use the cable service; channel positions of 
programming carried on the system; billing and complaint procedures; 
assessed fees for rental of navigation devices and single and 
additional CableCARDs; and the fees allocable to the rental of single 
and additional CableCARDs and the rental of operator-supplied 
navigation devices, if the provider includes equipment in the price of 
a bundled service offering.
    <bullet> Customer service--rate and service changes (47 CFR 
76.1603): Requires cable operators to notify customers of any changes 
in rates, programming services, or channel positions as soon as 
possible in writing; to notify subscribers a minimum of 30 days in 
advance of such changes, if the change is within the control of the 
cable operator; to notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any 
significant changes in the other information required by Sec.  76.1602; 
to give 30 days written notice to subscribers before implementing any 
rate or service change, stating the precise amount of any rate change 
and a brief explanation in readily understandable fashion of the cause 
of the rate change; to provide written notice to a subscriber of any 
increase in the price to be charged for the basic service tier or 
associated equipment at least 30 days before any proposed increase is 
effective (or 60 days if the equipment is provided to the consumer 
without charge pursuant to Sec.  76.630), including the price to be 
charged, the date that the new charge will be effective, and the name 
and address of the local franchising authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To the extent the cable operator is required to provide 
notice of service and rate changes to subscribers, the operator may 
provide such notice using any reasonable written means at its sole 
discretion. 47 CFR 76.1603(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Charges for customer service changes (47 CFR 76.1604): 
Requires cable systems to notify all subscribers in writing that they 
may be subject to a charge for changing service tiers more than the 
specified number of times in any 12-month period, if the cable operator 
establishes a higher charge for changes effected solely by coded entry 
on a computer terminal or by other similarly simple methods.
    <bullet> Basic tier availability (47 CFR 76.1618): Requires a cable 
operator to provide written notification of the availability of basic 
tier service to new subscribers at the time of installation, which 
should include that the basic tier is available, the cost per month for 
basic tier service, and a list of all services included in the basic 
service tier.
    <bullet> Availability of signals (47 CFR 76.1620): Requires a cable 
operator to notify subscribers of all broadcast stations carried on the 
cable system which cannot be viewed via cable without a converter box 
and to offer to sell or lease such a converter box to such subscribers, 
if a cable operator authorizes subscribers to install additional 
receiver connections, but does not provide the subscriber with such 
connections or with the equipment and materials for such 
connections.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Such notification must be provided to each new subscriber 
upon initial installation and annually thereafter. Id. sec. 76.1620. 
The notice, which may be included in routine billing statements, 
must identify the signals that are unavailable without an additional 
connection, the manner for obtaining such additional connection, and 
instructions for installation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Equipment compatibility offer (47 CFR 76.1621): Requires 
cable system operators that use scrambling, encryption, or similar 
technologies in conjunction with cable system terminal devices that may 
affect subscribers' reception of signals to offer to supply each 
subscriber with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous 
reception of multiple signals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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. Id. sec. 76.1621(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Consumer education program on compatibility (47 CFR 
76.1622): Requires cable system operators to provide a consumer 
education program on compatibility matters to their subscribers in 
writing that includes certain information, such as notice that certain 
models of television receivers and videocassette recorders may not be 
able to receive all of the channels offered by the cable system when 
connected directly to the system, as well as an explanation of the 
types of channel compatibility problems that could occur if the device 
is connected directly to the system and suggestions to resolve such 
problems; notice that subscribers may not be able to use special 
features and functions of their television receivers and videocassette 
recorders where service is received through a cable system terminal 
device; and notice that remote control units compatible with cable 
system terminal

[[Page 2121]]

devices and other customer premises equipment provided to subscribers 
may be obtained from other sources, such as retail outlets, as well as 
a representative list of remote control models that are compatible with 
deployed customer premises equipment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This information must be provided to subscribers at the time 
they first subscribe and at least once a year thereafter. Id. sec. 
76.1622(a). The rule specifies that this notification requirement 
may also be satisfied by an annual mailing to all subscribers and 
may be included in one of the system's regular subscriber billings. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In June 2017, the Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling (2017 
Declaratory Ruling) that interpreted the written communications 
requirement of one section of subpart T to be satisfied by electronic 
delivery of written material to subscribers.\9\ Specifically, the 
ruling clarified that the ``written information'' that cable operators 
provide to their subscribers annually pursuant to Sec.  76.1602(b) of 
the Commission's rules may be provided via email to a verified email 
address if there is a mechanism for customers to opt out of email 
delivery and continue to receive paper notices.\10\ The Commission 
found that section 632(b) of the Act grants the Commission authority to 
establish the means by which annual notices may be delivered to 
subscribers and to specify consumer protections with regard to the 
delivery of the notices.\11\ It concluded that the statute does not 
impose any limitations on the Commission's authority under section 
632(b) to specify the means by which cable operators may deliver 
notices to consumers.\12\ The Commission determined that a verified 
email address is necessary to ensure that the written information is 
provided--i.e., made available--to subscribers, as is required by Sec.  
76.1602(b).\13\ The Commission also cited policy arguments that it 
found to be persuasive in support of interpreting the ``written 
information'' requirement of Sec.  76.1602(b) to encompass electronic 
distribution to a verified email address, such as the positive 
environmental aspects of saving substantial amounts of paper annually, 
increased efficiency, and enabling customers to more readily access 
accurate information about their service options.\14\ The Commission 
concluded that electronic delivery of annual notices would greatly ease 
the burden of complying with these notification requirements for all 
cable operators, including small cable operators.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See National Cable & Telecommunications Association and 
American Cable Association, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5269 (2017) (2017 Declaratory 
Ruling). See 82 FR 35658. 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 Sec.  76.1602(b) of the Commission's 
rules may be provided via electronic distribution).
    \10\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5269, paragraph 1.
    \11\ Id. at 5273, paragraph 7.
    \12\ Id. In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992, Congress, in order to ``provide increased 
consumer protection,'' amended section 632 of the Act to require the 
Commission to adopt customer service standards for cable operators. 
Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); 47 U.S.C. 552. In section 
632(b), Congress directs the Commission to ``establish standards by 
which cable operators may fulfill their customer service 
requirements'' and specifies 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).'' 47 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).
    \13\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5274, paragraph 9.
    \14\ Id. at 5272-73, paragraph 6.
    \15\ Id. at 5273, paragraph 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. As discussed in more detail below, parties responding to the 
Commission's Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative ask the 
Commission to consider permitting electronic delivery of information 
required to be provided by cable operators to subscribers in writing 
pursuant to subpart T, consistent with the Commission's findings in the 
2017 Declaratory Ruling, and to consider other changes to the rules in 
subpart T.
    5. Carriage Election Notices. When the Commission implemented the 
law establishing the must carry/retransmission consent regime,\16\ it 
adopted a requirement that each commercial television broadcast station 
provide periodic notice to cable operators electing either to demand 
carriage or to withhold carriage absent express consent.\17\ A similar 
requirement, applying to both commercial and noncommercial television 
broadcast stations, was adopted as part of the ``carry one, carry all'' 
regime for Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) carriers.\18\ In both 
cases, the election notice must be sent via certified mail once every 
three years by each broadcaster to each cable system and DBS carrier 
serving the station's market. A number of broadcaster commenters in the 
Media Modernization proceeding propose changes to this process, as set 
forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``The Communications Act prohibits cable operators and 
other multichannel video programming distributors from 
retransmitting commercial television, low power television and radio 
broadcast signals without first obtaining the broadcaster's consent. 
This permission is commonly referred to as `retransmission consent' 
and may involve some compensation from the cable company to the 
broadcaster for the use of the signal. Alternately, local commercial 
and noncommercial television broadcast stations may require a cable 
operator that serves the same market as the broadcaster to carry its 
signal. A demand for carriage is commonly referred to as `must-
carry.' If the broadcast station asserts its must-carry rights, the 
broadcaster cannot demand compensation from the cable operator. 
While retransmission consent and must-carry are distinct and 
function separately, they are related in that commercial 
broadcasters are required to choose once every three years, on a 
system-by-system basis, whether to obtain carriage or continue 
carriage by choosing between must carry and retransmission 
consent.'' FCC Media Bureau, Cable Carriage of Broadcast Stations, 
https://www.fcc.gov/media/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations (last 
visited Oct. 4, 2017).
    \17\ 47 CFR 76.64(h) (adopted in Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 
3003, paragraph 160 (1993)).
    \18\ 47 CFR 76.66(d) (adopted in Implementation of the Satellite 
Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage 
Issues; Retransmission Consent Issues, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 
1918, 1932, paragraph 30 (2000)). ``Carry one, carry all'' refers to 
the fact that DBS carriers are not required to carry any local 
broadcast stations in a market, but must carry all of them upon 
request if any are carried (with certain narrow exceptions). The DBS 
``mandatory carriage/retransmission consent'' regime otherwise 
functions in a manner very similar to the cable ``must carry/
retransmission consent'' regime described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Modernization of MVPD Notice Requirements

1. Electronic Distribution of Notices to Subscribers
    6. We propose to adopt a rule that would allow various types of 
generic written 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.\19\ This includes generic written information provided to 
consumers about the deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals 
(Sec.  76.1601); general information about services offered (Sec.  
76.1602); rate and service changes (Sec.  76.1603); charges for 
customer service changes (Sec.  76.1604); basic tier availability 
(Sec.  76.1618); availability of signals (Sec.  76.1620); equipment 
compatibility offer (Sec.  76.1621); and consumer education program on 
compatibility (Sec.  76.1622).\20\ Consistent with the Commission's 
clarification in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling that written information 
required under Sec.  76.1602(b) can be sent via email

[[Page 2122]]

to a verified email address with inclusion of an opt-out mechanism, we 
tentatively conclude to adopt a rule reflecting these requirements with 
respect to Sec.  76.1602(b) and some of the other subscriber notices 
required in the rules listed above. With respect to notices that 
pertain to rate and service changes, charges for customer service 
changes, basic tier availability, and subscriber privacy,\21\ we 
tentatively conclude that these notices can be sent via email to a 
verified email address and seek comment on whether consumers should 
have to opt in to begin receiving these notices electronically. 
Alternatively, we seek comment on whether these notifications should be 
treated like the other ones in subpart T such that cable operators 
should be permitted to deliver these notices electronically, if they 
allow consumers to opt out of email delivery and continue to receive 
paper notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ By ``generic'' or ``general,'' we mean information that 
applies to subscribers or groups of subscribers generally (e.g., 
those residing in the same zip code; those subscribing to the same 
service, etc.) and is not specific to an individual subscriber. See 
2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5275, paragraph 10, note 40.
    \20\ 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1604, 76.1618, 76.1620 through 
76.1622.
    \21\ Id. secs. 76.1603 through 76.1604, 76.1618; 47 U.S.C. 
551(a)(1), 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In comments filed in the Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative docket, some industry commenters request that the Commission 
take steps to ease the burden of complying with the cable notice 
requirements, such as by permitting electronic distribution of written 
notifications to subscribers. NCTA asks the Commission to adopt more 
efficient, less costly ways to provide required notices, and it 
contends that cable operators should expressly be permitted to 
correspond with customers via electronic means, if the customer has 
provided the cable operator with an email address or contacted the 
cable operator using such means.\22\ ACA agrees with NCTA that, ``at a 
minimum, the Commission should clarify that the written notice 
requirement as it pertains to [customer notification] provisions can be 
satisfied via electronic notice.'' \23\ ACA posits that ``electronic 
notification would provide welcomed relief to cable operators and other 
entities from paperwork burdens.'' \24\ According to ACA, modifying 
subscriber notification rules can relieve cable operators from undue 
burdens and reduce subscriber ``notice fatigue.'' \25\ Verizon agrees 
that ``electronic delivery should be available for required notices to 
subscribers.'' \26\ Frontier Communications Corporation (Frontier) 
supports reform of ``outdated notice requirements that were created 
before companies had websites and before customers had email.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Comments of NCTA--The internet and Television Association, 
at 4-5 (NCTA Comments).
    \23\ Reply Comments of the American Cable Association, at 9 (ACA 
Reply). ACA asks the Commission to launch a rulemaking to update 
outdated subscriber notification requirements. See Comments of the 
American Cable Association, at 18-26 (ACA Comments).
    \24\ ACA Reply at 9.
    \25\ ACA Comments at 19.
    \26\ Reply Comments of Verizon, at 6 (Verizon Reply).
    \27\ Reply Comments of Frontier Communications Corp., at 6 
(Frontier Reply).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We tentatively conclude that permitting cable operators to 
deliver the aforementioned subscriber notices by email would serve the 
public interest. We believe that the policy considerations that the 
Commission found persuasive in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling clarifying 
that the annual notices required under Sec.  76.1602(b) may be 
delivered electronically apply equally with respect to other subscriber 
notices required in subpart T of the rules, and we seek comment on our 
tentative conclusion that the public interest would be served by our 
proposal. We note that no party in the media modernization proceeding 
has opposed the cable industry's request to permit electronic 
distribution of notices to subscribers.
    9. In the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission concluded that it 
has authority to establish the means by which subpart T notices may be 
delivered to subscribers and to specify consumer protections with 
regard to the delivery of the notices.\28\ As noted above, 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.'' \29\ Moreover, the statute does not 
impose limitations on the Commission's authority to specify the means 
by which cable operators may deliver notices to or otherwise 
communicate with consumers (including communications about bills and 
refunds).\30\ Because the Commission has authority to establish 
standards governing communications between cable operators and 
subscribers, and email is one such method of communication, we believe 
permitting cable operators to deliver subscriber notices by email is 
consistent with section 632(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5273, paragraph 7.
    \29\ 47 U.S.C. 552(b).
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. A different statutory standard applies to notices of service 
and rate changes provided to subscribers pursuant to Sec.  76.1603. 
Section 632(c) of the Act states that ``[a] cable operator may provide 
notice of service and rate changes to subscribers using any reasonable 
written means at its sole discretion.'' \31\ Section 76.1603, which 
implements section 632(c), also states that notice of rate or service 
changes can be made by any reasonable written means at the discretion 
of the cable operator.\32\ We tentatively conclude that ``reasonable 
written means'' includes distribution via email to a verified email 
address. We tentatively find that permitting cable operators to deliver 
notices about service and rate changes via email satisfies the 
``written means'' requirement of section 632(c). As we have found 
previously, emails, by their very nature, convey information in 
writing.\33\ Section 632(c) further requires the written means chosen 
by the cable operator to be ``reasonable.'' \34\ For the reasons 
described below, we tentatively find that to be ``reasonable,'' a cable 
operator must use a subscriber's verified email address. We seek 
comment on these tentative conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See id. sec. 552(c). See also 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 
FCC Rcd at 5273, note 27; Implementation of Cable Act Reform 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 
14 FCC Rcd 5296, 5363, paragraph 156 (1999) (``[N]otices of rate 
changes provided to subscribers through written announcements on the 
cable system or in the newspaper will be presumed sufficient.'').
    \32\ See 47 CFR 76.1603(e). See also NCTA Comments at 7-8 
(requesting that the Commission clarify that a written notice for 
purposes of Sec.  76.1603 includes an electronic notice); Frontier 
Reply at 8 (same).
    \33\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5272, paragraph 6.
    \34\ See 47 U.S.C. 552(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We believe that certain consumer safeguards must be put in 
place if cable operators are permitted to disseminate written 
notifications to subscribers electronically with respect to subpart T 
notification rules. First, we tentatively conclude that cable operators 
must have verified email contact information if they choose to deliver 
notifications to subscribers via email, and, if no verified email 
contact information is available for a particular subscriber, cable 
operators must continue to deliver notices via paper copies to that 
subscriber.\35\ In the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission 
determined that, for purposes of satisfying the requirements of Sec.  
76.1602(b), each of the following would be considered to be a verified 
email address: (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

[[Page 2123]]

confirmed by the subscriber as an appropriate vehicle for the delivery 
of notices.\36\ We see no reason to deviate from the criteria 
identified in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, and we propose to adopt this 
as a definition of the term ``verified email address'' as part of our 
rules. This definition was proposed by the cable industry, and we found 
that it set acceptable parameters for the email delivery of written 
material.\37\ We seek comment on this proposal and tentative finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5274, paragraph 9.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See id. at 5274, paragraph 9 (``By requiring the use of a 
verified email address, we will ensure that the . . . notices have a 
high probability of being successfully delivered electronically to 
an email address that the customer actually uses, so that the 
written information is actually provided to the customer.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Second, we tentatively conclude that cable operators must 
provide a mechanism for subscribers to opt out of email delivery and 
continue to receive paper notices with respect to the following subpart 
T notification rules: Generic written information provided to consumers 
about the deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals (Sec.  
76.1601); general information about services offered (Sec.  76.1602); 
availability of signals (Sec.  76.1620); equipment compatibility offer 
(Sec.  76.1621); and consumer education program on compatibility (Sec.  
76.1622).\38\ In the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined 
that to satisfy Sec.  76.1602(b), cable operators must include an opt-
out telephone number that is clearly and prominently presented to 
subscribers in the body of the originating email that delivers the 
notices, so that it is readily identifiable as an opt-out option, to 
ensure that customers continue to be provided information in a way that 
they will actually accept and receive.\39\ We tentatively find that it 
is necessary to allow subscribers to opt out of email delivery and to 
provide an opt-out mechanism that is clearly and prominently presented 
in the body of the originating email for purposes of the aforementioned 
notice rules in subpart T, and we seek comment on this tentative 
finding.\40\ Should we require that cable operators provide a telephone 
opt-out method as a minimum requirement, consistent with the 2017 
Declaratory Ruling? Or, should we also permit cable operators to 
provide the opt-out mechanism via an electronic link that allows 
subscribers to identify their delivery preferences electronically, as 
an alternative to providing the opt out mechanism via a telephone 
number? \41\ We recognize that subscribers are accustomed to having 
electronic opt-out links available in commercial emails,\42\ and that, 
for many internet-savvy subscribers, an electronic link will be more 
efficient than a telephone number. However, in the 2017 Declaratory 
Ruling, the Commission found that providing a telephone number ``would 
be the means most universally accessible to customers that prefer not 
to receive their notices electronically,'' and it specified this as the 
minimum requirement.\43\ Is there reason to deviate from that approach 
for purposes of our rules? To the extent we adopt safeguards that 
differ from those specified in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, should we 
adopt such safeguards also with respect to the annual notices required 
under Sec.  76.1602(b) of the rules, or is there a reason to treat 
Sec.  76.1602(b) differently?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1602, 76.1620 through 76.1622.
    \39\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5275, paragraph 10.
    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id. at 5276, paragraph 10 (agreeing with commenters 
that providing a link for customers to identify their delivery 
preference electronically ``could also be efficient and convenient 
for many customers'').
    \42\ Commercial emails must include an opt-out option under the 
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing 
Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. 7701, et seq. (CAN-SPAM Act). Many commercial 
emails satisfy this requirement with an ``unsubscribe'' link.
    \43\ See also 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, 
paragraph 10. The Commission also noted that, while providing an 
opt-out telephone number is a minimum requirement, ``cable operators 
may choose to offer additional choices to their customers that are 
clearly and prominently presented in the body of the originating 
email.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. With respect to notices of rate and service changes pursuant to 
Sec.  76.1603, charges for customer service changes pursuant to Sec.  
76.1604, and basic tier availability pursuant to Sec.  76.1618, we seek 
comment on whether subscribers should have to opt in to begin receiving 
these notices electronically.\44\ Does the nature of these notices in 
particular necessitate that cable operators have an opt-in safeguard in 
place with respect to these notices? If so, what specific opt-in 
procedures should be required? Or, alternatively, should these 
notifications be treated like the other ones in subpart T such that 
cable operators should be permitted to deliver these notices 
electronically, if they allow consumers to opt out of email delivery 
and continue to receive paper notices? Are there advantages to both 
consumers and cable operators in having various notices treated in a 
similar manner?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 47 CFR 76.1603 through 76.1604, 76.1618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found that 
inclusion of a website link to the notice itself would be considered 
reasonable when annual notices are delivered via email, provided the 
link remains active until superseded by a subsequent notice, and would 
give customers flexibility to choose when to review the annual 
notices.\45\ We tentatively conclude that this finding should also 
apply with respect to any other subpart T subscriber notices that the 
Commission permits cable operators to send to subscribers via email, 
and we seek comment on this tentative finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, paragraph 11, 
note 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We also seek comment on whether we should permit cable 
operators to provide to subscribers notices of general information at 
the time of installation and annually thereafter pursuant to Sec.  
76.1602 and information on basic tier availability pursuant to Sec.  
76.1618 by posting the written material on the cable operator's 
website, in lieu of providing such notice to subscribers via U.S. mail 
or electronic delivery to a verified email address.\46\ NCTA, Frontier, 
and ACA identify these two requirements in particular as suitable for 
website posting.\47\ We seek comment on whether it is appropriate for 
these types of generic notifications to be provided to subscribers via 
website posting. We seek input on the benefits, both to cable operators 
and to subscribers, of permitting notices via website posting to 
fulfill these written notice requirements as well as any potential 
burdens this may pose to subscribers. Would subscribers benefit from 
having an option that allows them to access written material via the 
cable operator's website at any time that is convenient to them, as 
opposed to either paper copies delivered to a physical address or email 
copies delivered to a verified email address? Would website posting 
lessen the burden on cable operators, and small operators in 
particular, to

[[Page 2124]]

communicate this information every year to each subscriber on an 
individual basis, while still fulfilling the objectives of section 632?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 47 CFR 76.1602, 76.1618.
    \47\ With respect to initial and annual notices, NCTA notes that 
this detailed information ``appears to be of little utility to 
customers and can become frequently outdated,'' and that website 
posting would enable operators to provide more timely information in 
a less burdensome manner. NCTA Comments at 5-6. With respect to 
notice of the availability of the basic service tier, NCTA asserts 
that most customers would instinctively turn to the cable operator's 
website for information about programming packages and channel 
lineups. Id. at 8-9. See also ACA Comments at 23 (``[T]he Commission 
should consider modifying its rules to allow cable operators to 
decide how best to convey statutorily mandated information about the 
basic tier to customers.''). Frontier agrees that cable operators 
should be allowed to share any required annual information by 
posting the information on its website, giving subscribers the 
opportunity to opt in to email notification. Frontier Reply at 7. 
While acknowledging that, for the most part, the notices convey 
``important information for consumers to have,'' ACA questions the 
benefit of delivering the information year after year. ACA Comments 
at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. On the other hand, would a website posting of initial and 
annual notices required pursuant to Sec.  76.1602 and information on 
basic tier availability required pursuant to Sec.  76.1618 ensure that 
subscribers are adequately informed? The Commission recently observed 
that ``[t]he internet has become a major part of consumers' daily lives 
and now represents a widely used medium to obtain information.'' \48\ 
However, in the 2017 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission rejected the 
request of the petitioners in that proceeding to permit electronic 
delivery of annual notices via other means reasonably calculated to 
reach the individual customer, and instead limited permissible 
electronic delivery to email.\49\ The Commission explained that 
allowing other means to deliver annual notices, such as placing a 
website link inside a bill, ``could create an undue risk that 
subscribers will not receive the required notices.'' \50\ Can the 
Commission's concerns be mitigated by putting some consumer safeguards 
or additional requirements in place? Further, are there any 
requirements that the Commission can adopt to help ensure that 
subscribers without internet access receive the required notices? For 
example, if cable operators were permitted to include a website link to 
these notices inside a bill, should we also require them to include a 
telephone number that subscribers can use to request a paper copy of 
the notices?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Amendment of Section 73.624(g) of the Commission's Rules 
Regarding Submission of FCC Form 2100, Schedule G, Used to Report TV 
Stations' Ancillary or Supplementary Services; Amendment of Section 
73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the 
Filing of Broadcast Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 
73.3580, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 8203, 8208-09, 
paragraphs 8-9 (2017) (seeking comment on whether to update Sec.  
73.3580 of the Commission's rules to provide broadcast licensees 
with more flexibility as to how they inform the public about the 
filing of certain applications, including whether to allow posting 
of such notice on an internet website).
    \49\ 2017 Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd at 5276, paragraph 11.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. To the extent that the Commission does decide to permit website 
posting of these two subpart T notices, we seek comment on what 
requirements should be adopted to ensure this information can be easily 
accessed by consumers. For example, should the Commission require that 
an electronic link to written material posted on a cable operator's 
website be clearly labeled ``Important Subscriber Notices'' and be 
prominently displayed on the initial screen of the cable operator's 
website? This would allow subscribers to easily locate the pertinent 
written material without having to search the website. Should any 
website link containing generic written material include an opt-out 
mechanism that allows subscribers to identify their delivery 
preferences? Should the Commission specify that the link must allow a 
subscriber to find the same information that would be included in the 
paper copies delivered to the subscriber's physical address or 
delivered by email to a verified email address? We seek comment on 
these or any other consumer protections that would be appropriate to 
impose in conjunction with website posting to ensure that consumers 
effectively receive the required notifications.
    18. Finally, as suggested by NCTA,\51\ we tentatively conclude that 
we should add a rule in subpart T that specifies that subscriber 
privacy notifications required pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 
653 of the Act may be delivered electronically to a verified email 
address, subject to the consumer safeguards discussed above. 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.\52\ 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.\53\ We tentatively 
conclude that the Commission should interpret the term ``separate, 
written statement'' in these statutory provisions to include notices 
delivered electronically to a verified email address and that the 
Commission should add a rule to subpart T codifying this 
interpretation. We seek comment on whether subscribers should have to 
opt in to begin receiving electronic privacy notices. Or, 
alternatively, should these notifications be treated like the other 
ones in subpart T such that MVPDs should be permitted to deliver them 
electronically, if they allow consumers to opt out of email delivery 
and continue to receive paper notices? We recognize the importance of 
privacy protections to video subscribers, which are reflected in 
sections 631, 338(i), and 653(c)(1)(A). Are there concerns underlying 
the privacy notification requirements that suggest those requirements 
should be treated differently from other subscriber notifications?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See NCTA Comments at 9. Although NCTA's comments discuss 
only the privacy notifications applicable to cable operators 
pursuant to section 631, we find it appropriate to also address 
similar statutory provisions applicable to other types of MVPDs.
    \52\ 47 U.S.C. 551(a)(1). Specifically, section 631 requires 
annual notice of ``(A) the nature of personally identifiable 
information collected or to be collected with respect to the 
subscriber and the nature of the use of such information; (B) the 
nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which may be made 
of such information, including an identification of the types of 
persons to whom the disclosure may be made; (C) the period during 
which such information will be maintained by the cable operator; (D) 
the times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such 
information in accordance with subsection (d) [of this section]; and 
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to the 
collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the 
right of the subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) [of this 
section] to enforce such limitations.'' Id.
    \53\ Id. secs. 338(i), 573(c)(1)(a); 47 CFR 76.1510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Responses to Consumer Requests and Complaints by E-Mail
    19. We propose 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 delivery method in the request or complaint, and 
we seek comment on this proposal.\54\ Sections 76.1614 and 76.1619 of 
subpart T require written responses to requests or complaints.\55\ 
Specifically, Sec.  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.\56\ Section 76.1619 
requires cable operators to respond to a written complaint from a 
subscriber within 30 days if there is a billing dispute.\57\ We seek 
comment on whether there are any other provisions in subpart T that 
would be affected by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Our proposal is limited to responses to consumer complaints 
or requests, and does not extend to communications between cable 
operators and other parties, such as broadcast stations.
    \55\ See 47 CFR 76.1614, 76.1619.
    \56\ Id. sec. 76.1614.
    \57\ Id. sec. 76.1619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. NCTA asks the Commission to clarify that cable providers may 
use email to respond to consumer complaints when the consumer ``has 
provided an email address on the complaint form and has not 
specifically requested a different format.'' \58\ According to NCTA, 
``[a]n electronic submission implicitly and reasonably calls for an 
electronic response.'' \59\

[[Page 2125]]

NCTA also points out that the Commission already permits common 
carriers and internet service providers to respond to formal complaints 
by email.\60\ Likewise, Frontier calls on the Commission to allow cable 
providers to use email to respond to consumer complaints when the 
consumer has provided an email address on the complaint form or if the 
provider has an email address on record.\61\ Frontier contends that 
this would ``cut down on unnecessary paper waste and postage and remove 
unnecessary costs.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NCTA Comments at 10.
    \59\ Id. at 11.
    \60\ Id. at 10-11 (citing 47 CFR 1.735(f) (permitting answers to 
formal complaints against common carriers to be delivered by email); 
and 8.13(c)(1) (permitting the same for formal complaints regarding 
open internet rules)). NCTA also notes that this would be consistent 
with prior guidance from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau allowing providers to submit responses to informal complaints 
against common carriers via email. Id. at 11, note 30.
    \61\ Frontier Reply at 15.
    \62\ Id. Frontier also notes that letter or email communication 
is frequently made in addition to communication via other means, 
including by phone for ``the most pressing and important 
complaints.'' Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. 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. We seek comment 
on this proposal.
3. Other Subpart T Requirements
    22. Sec.  76.1621 (Equipment Compatibility Offer).\63\ We propose 
to eliminate Sec.  76.1621, which requires cable operators to offer and 
provide upon request to subscribers ``special equipment that will 
enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals.'' \64\ We seek 
comment on whether the requirements in Sec.  76.1621 can be eliminated 
consistent with section 624A of the Act.\65\ NCTA argues the Commission 
should eliminate this requirement because it is a ``relic[] of long-
outdated technologies and policies.'' \66\ When the Commission adopted 
the requirement for cable operators to offer subscribers special 
equipment with multiple tuners, it was intended to address ``cases 
where cable systems use scrambling technology and set-top boxes,'' 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,'' including ``picture-in-
picture'' features or the ability to watch one program while recording 
another.\67\ Today, consumers widely use digital video recorders 
(DVRs), rather than VCRs or television receivers, for recording 
features, and ``picture-in-picture'' features on television receivers 
are not prevalent. Given today's digital technologies, we tentatively 
conclude that it is no longer necessary to promote the ``special 
equipment that will enable the simultaneous reception of multiple 
signals'' referred to in the rules, and we seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ ACA and NCTA request that the Commission delete Sec.  
76.1630 of the Commission's rules, which requires cable operators 
and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to 
provide subscribers with notices about the digital transition in 
monthly bills or bill notices received by subscribers beginning 
April 1, 2009 and concluding on June 30, 2009. See 47 CFR 76.1630; 
ACA Comments at 26; NCTA Comments at 9. We plan to address this in a 
subsequent order in the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative 
proceeding. NCTA and Frontier also request that the Commission 
eliminate or revise the requirements for cable operators to provide 
subscribers with notice of certain rate changes in Sec. Sec.  
76.1603 and 76.1604 of the Commission's rules. See NCTA Comments at 
6-8; Frontier Reply at 8-9. We plan to address these issues in a 
subsequent proceeding.
    \64\ See 47 CFR 76.1621.
    \65\ See 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2). Section 624A specifies 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.'' See id. sec. 544a(d).
    \66\ NCTA Comments at 9.
    \67\ See 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, paragraphs 43-48 (1994). 
See also 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Sec.  76.1622 (Consumer Education Program on Compatibility). We 
seek comment on how to appropriately update references to technology in 
Sec.  76.1622 of the Commission's rules, which requires cable operators 
to provide a consumer education program on equipment and signal 
compatibility matters to their subscribers in writing upon initial 
subscription and annually thereafter.\68\ Among other types of 
technology, the rule refers to the compatibility of ``videocassette 
recorders.'' \69\ Frontier asks the Commission to update Sec.  76.1622, 
noting that a requirement to educate consumers on the interoperability 
of videocassette recorders no longer makes sense.\70\ ACA emphasizes 
that ``[c]oncerns about TV receiver and VCR compatibility are, quite 
simply, no longer relevant to today's consumer.'' \71\ We seek comment 
on how we can best modernize references to technology in Sec.  
76.1622.\72\ We also seek comment on whether there are any parts of the 
rule that are no longer necessary given changes in technology and, 
therefore, should be eliminated.\73\ We seek comment on whether the 
requirements in Sec.  76.1622 can be modified consistent with section 
624A of the Act, and, if so, how.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 47 CFR 76.1622.
    \69\ See id.
    \70\ Frontier Reply at 7-8.
    \71\ ACA Comments at 25.
    \72\ ACA asserts that section 624A of the Act references 
outdated technology, specifically requiring the Commission to 
prescribe regulations with respect to the compatibility of 
``videocassette recorders.'' Id. at 23-24; 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2). 
However, as ACA notes, the statute also directs the Commission to 
periodically review and, if necessary, modify its regulations with 
regard to consumer education about equipment compatibility ``to 
reflect improvements and changes in cable systems, television 
receivers, video cassette recorders, and similar technology.'' See 
47 U.S.C. 544a(d); ACA Comments at 24, note 93.
    \73\ See NCTA Comments at 9 (arguing that the Commission should 
eliminate Sec.  76.1622 because it is a ``relic[] of long-outdated 
technologies and policies'' and addresses ``equipment that no longer 
is routinely used by consumers''). Section 624A directs the 
Commission to ``include such regulations as are necessary'' to 
notify subscribers of certain consumer electronics equipment 
compatibility issues. See 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2) (emphasis added).
    \74\ See 47 U.S.C. 544a(c)(2). Section 624A(c)(2) states that 
``[t]he regulations prescribed by the Commission . . . shall include 
such regulations as are necessary . . . to require cable operators 
offering channels whose reception requires a converter box--(i) to 
notify subscribers that they may be unable to benefit from the 
special functions of their television receivers and video cassette 
recorders, including functions that permit subscribers . . . to 
watch a program on one channel while simultaneously using a video 
cassette recorder to tape a program on another channel; . . . to use 
a video cassette recorder to tape two consecutive programs that 
appear on different channels; and . . . to use advanced television 
picture generation and display features; and . . . (ii) to the 
extent technically and economically feasible, to offer subscribers 
the option of having all other channels delivered directly to the 
subscribers' television receivers or video cassette recorders 
without passing through the converter box.'' Id. sec. 544a(c)(2)(B). 
In addition, the statute requires the regulations ``to require a 
cable operator who offers subscribers the option of renting a remote 
control unit . . . to notify subscribers that they may purchase a 
commercially available remote control device from any source that 
sells such devices rather than renting it from the cable operator; 
and . . . to specify the types of remote control units that are 
compatible with the converter box supplied by the cable operator.'' 
Id. sec. 544a(c)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Further, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
consider any other changes to Sec.  76.1622, such as scaling back the 
requirement to provide these types of notices annually. ACA asks the 
Commission to eliminate those parts of the rule that are not mandated 
by statute, such as the requirement to provide this information to 
subscribers at the time of subscription

[[Page 2126]]

and then annually thereafter, and to give cable operators greater 
flexibility in determining when and how to notify subscribers about 
equipment compatibility issues.\75\ ACA argues that the redundancy of 
annual notices ``is no longer necessary, especially now that technology 
has moved far beyond what was considered cutting edge at the time the 
statute was enacted, and the equipment compatibility problems the 
requirement was designed to solve are no longer pervasive.'' \76\ We 
seek comment on whether the Commission should grant cable operators 
more flexibility with respect to these notices, as suggested by ACA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ ACA Comments at 23-25.
    \76\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Carriage Election Notices

    25. We seek comment on how to revise Sec. Sec.  76.64(h) and 
76.66(d) of our rules to permit television broadcast stations to use 
alternative means of notifying MVPDs about their carriage elections. 
Currently, the rules direct each television broadcast station to 
provide notice every three years, via certified mail, to each cable 
system or DBS carrier serving its market regarding whether it is 
electing to demand carriage (``must carry'' or ``mandatory carriage''), 
or to withhold carriage pending negotiation (``retransmission 
consent''). The DBS rule also states that the certified mail letter be 
``return receipt requested.'' \77\ The Commission ``believe[d] that 
certified mail, return receipt requested [was] the preferred method to 
ensure that broadcast stations [were] able to demonstrate that they 
submitted their elections by the required deadline, and that they were 
received by the satellite carrier.'' \78\ A number of commenters have 
proposed changes to this process.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii).
    \78\ Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act 
of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Order on Reconsideration, 
16 FCC Rcd 16544, 16576, paragraph 65 (2001).
    \79\ See Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters, 
at 22-23 (NAB Comments); Comments of CBS Corporation, The Walt 
Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Inc., and Univision Communications 
Inc., at 10-12 (CBS, Disney, Fox, and Univision Comments); Comments 
of Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., at 16-17 (Nexstar Comments); Comments 
of America's Public Television Stations et al., at 15 (APTS 
Comments); Comments of Meredith Corporation, at 2; Reply Comments of 
the ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network 
Affiliates Association, and FBC Television Affiliates Association, 
at 10-11; Joint Reply Comments of the Named State Broadcasters 
Associations, at 7-8; Reply Comments of AT&T, at 5-6 (AT&T Reply). 
Although some of these commenters proposed even broader changes to 
the must carry/retransmission consent system, in this docket we are 
focused exclusively on notice issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. We seek comment on what alternative means of serving triennial 
election notices would satisfy the needs of broadcasters and MVPDs, 
such as express delivery service or email. Nexstar, among others, 
suggests that notices could be delivered via email, and AT&T proposes 
allowing broadcasters to use express delivery services instead of 
certified U.S. mail.\80\ How would these or other approaches work in 
practice? As discussed above, we have in another context allowed 
delivery of certain customer notices to a ``verified'' email address, 
noting that such a notice will ``have a high probability of being 
successfully delivered electronically to an email address that the 
customer actually uses, so that the written information is actually 
provided to the customer.'' We seek comment on whether this approach 
would be sufficient in the context of carriage election notices, where 
significant legal and financial consequences arise from the failure to 
make a timely election notice.\81\ Is there an electronic equivalent to 
certified mail? Would the use of express delivery services, as proposed 
by AT&T, meaningfully reduce burdens on broadcasters? More generally, 
can we modernize our rules in a way that would minimize the burden on 
broadcasters, ensure that MVPDs receive the elections in a timely way, 
and still provide a mechanism by which broadcasters can demonstrate 
that they met the election deadline with respect to specific cable 
operators and DBS carriers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Nexstar Comments at 16-17; AT&T Reply at 5-6.
    \81\ A failure to deliver a timely carriage election notice to a 
cable operator means that station defaults to must carry with 
respect to that operator, and loses the ability to negotiate for 
compensation for carriage of the station during that three-year 
election cycle. 47 CFR 76.64(f)(3). See also ACA Reply at 13 
(arguing that continued reliance on certified mail is essential). On 
the DBS side, a failure to deliver a timely carriage election notice 
has the opposite effect, meaning the station defaults to 
retransmission consent and loses the ability to demand carriage 
during that three-year election cycle. 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(v). See 
also APTS Comments at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Some commenters request that we eliminate the requirement to 
send election notices to MVPDs by certified mail, and replace it with a 
mechanism for providing notice of carriage election online.\82\ For 
example, in their joint filing, CBS, Disney, and Univision argue that 
``[t]he system-by-system election requirement creates inefficiencies, 
both for broadcasters and cable operators,'' incentivizes broadcasters 
to send duplicative notices, and is time-consuming and costly.\83\ They 
contend that allowing stations to provide notice of elections online 
``not only would make it easier for broadcasters and cable operators to 
keep track of elections but also would be consistent with rules 
applicable in other contexts and in line with the Commission's recent 
shift toward internet-based solutions.'' \84\ We seek comment on the 
pros and cons of this approach. In particular, what are the specific 
benefits to and burdens for both broadcasters and MVPDs of such an 
approach? Further, what rule changes would the Commission need to make 
to effectuate online notice of elections? For example, should all 
broadcasters be required to make carriage elections online or would 
this be one of their options in addition to the existing mechanism? 
Under an online election approach, how would broadcasters differentiate 
their elections to the extent they wish to make different elections 
vis-[agrave]-vis different MVPDs? Finally, would these online carriage 
elections be placed in the broadcasters' online public file or on 
another (existing or new) website that is publicly accessible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See, e.g., NAB Comments at 22-23; CBS, Disney, Fox, and 
Univision Comments at 11-12.
    \83\ CBS, Disney, Fox, and Univision Comments at 11.
    \84\ Id. at 11-12. But see AT&T Reply at 4-5 (arguing that this 
approach does not minimize burdens--it simply shifts them).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    28. This document may result in new or revised information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). If the Commission 
adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the 
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the 
public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission 
seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''

Ex Parte Rules

    29. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.\85\ Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum

[[Page 2127]]

summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the 
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine 
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which 
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may 
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior 
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page 
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in 
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.  
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which 
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Requirements

    30. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express 
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be 
addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    31. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    32. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096f6a6a3c393d496f6a6a276e667f">[email protected]</a> or call the FCC's 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Additional Information

    33. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Maria 
Mullarkey of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c517d6e757d32516970707d6e7779655c7a7f7f327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7aa86958e86c9aa928b8b86958c829ea7818484c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>, or (202) 418-2120.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\86\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy 
of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).\87\ In addition, the NPRM and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 through 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).
    \87\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \88\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    35. This NPRM addresses ways to modernize certain notice provisions 
in part 76 of the Federal Communications Commission's rules governing 
multichannel video and cable television service. First, the NPRM seeks 
comment on proposals to modernize the rules in subpart T of part 
76,\89\ which sets forth notice requirements applicable to cable 
operators. In particular, the NPRM proposes to allow various types of 
written 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. The 
NPRM also tentatively concludes that subscriber privacy notifications 
required pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), may be delivered 
electronically to a verified email address, subject to consumer 
safeguards. In addition, the NPRM proposes to permit cable operators to 
reply to consumer requests or complaints by email in certain 
circumstances. Second, the NPRM seeks comment on how to update the 
requirement in Sec. Sec.  76.64 and 76.66 of the Commission's rules 
that requires broadcast television stations to send carriage election 
notices via certified mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Basis

    36. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to 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, 
552, and 573.

[[Page 2128]]

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    37. 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.\90\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \91\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\92\ 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.\93\ Below, we provide a description of such 
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small 
entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \91\ Id. sec. 601(6).
    \92\ Id. sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference 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).
    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. 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. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but 11 are small under this size standard. In addition, 
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 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. Thus, 
under this second size standard, the Commission believes that most 
cable systems are small.
    39. 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.'' 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. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but 10 are small under this size standard. 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, and therefore we are unable to estimate 
more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify 
as small under this size standard.
    40. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide 
subscription services. 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 exchange carriers. The 
OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video 
programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators 
provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business 
size standard covering cable services, which is ``Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 
or fewer employees. 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. In addition, 
we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some 
now providing service. Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are 
currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local 
OVS franchises. 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. 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.
    41. 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,'' which was developed 
for small wireline firms. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline 
business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 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.
    42. 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

[[Page 2129]]

(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. The SBA determines 
that a wireline business is small if it has fewer than 1500 employees. 
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. 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. 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.
    43. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for such businesses: 
Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in 
that year. Of this number, 656 had annual receipts of $25 million or 
less, 25 had annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999, and 
70 had annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on this data we 
therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television 
broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
    44. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
February 24, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations to be 394. The Commission, however, does not 
compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the 
revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such 
stations would qualify as small entities.
    45. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly 
over-inclusive.
    46. There are also 417 Class A stations. Given the nature of these 
services, including their limited ability to cover the same size 
geographic areas as full power stations thus restricting their ability 
to generate similar levels of revenue, we will presume that these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, there are 1,968 LPTV stations and 3,776 TV translator 
stations. Given the nature of these services as secondary and in some 
cases purely a ``fill-in'' service, we will presume that all of these 
entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business 
size standard.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    47. As indicated above, this NPRM addresses ways to modernize 
certain notice provisions in part 76 of the FCC's rules governing 
multichannel video and cable television service. First, the NPRM seeks 
comment on proposals to modernize the rules in subpart T of part 
76,\94\ which sets forth notice requirements applicable to cable 
operators. In particular, the NPRM proposes to allow various types of 
written 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. The 
NPRM also tentatively concludes that subscriber privacy notifications 
required pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the 
Communications Act may be delivered electronically to a verified email 
address, subject to consumer safeguards. In addition, the NPRM proposes 
to permit cable operators to reply to consumer requests or complaints 
by email in certain circumstances. Second, the NPRM seeks comment on 
how to update the requirement in Sec. Sec.  76.64 and 76.66 of the 
Commission's rules that requires broadcast television stations to send 
carriage election notices via certified mail. Through this NPRM, the 
Commission seeks to minimize the administrative burden on cable 
television operators, including smaller cable operators, by allowing 
electronic delivery of certain notices to subscribers, which will 
reduce the costs and burdens of providing such notices. We anticipate 
that this will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on all cable operators, 
including small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 47 CFR 76.1601 through 76.1630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    48. 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.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in 
response to the NPRM and this IRFA. Generally, the NPRM seeks comment 
on: A proposal to adopt a rule allowing generic written communications 
from cable operators to subscribers required by subpart T to be 
delivered to a verified email address; a proposal to require an opt-out 
mechanism enabling customers to continue receiving paper notices for 
certain notices, and on whether to require consumers to opt in to 
electronic delivery for other notices; whether to

[[Page 2130]]

permit cable operators to provide certain written notices to 
subscribers by posting the written material on the cable operator's 
website; a proposal to adopt a rule specifying that cable, satellite, 
and open video system subscriber privacy notifications required 
pursuant to sections 631, 338(i), and 653 of the Communications Act may 
be delivered via email, subject to consumer safeguards; a 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 delivery method in the request or complaint; whether to adopt 
other proposals to update subpart T in light of technological advances 
and market changes in the cable industry; and how to update the 
requirements that broadcast stations send carriage election notices via 
certified mail. The Commission has found that electronic delivery of 
notices would greatly ease the burden of complying with notification 
requirements for cable operators, including small cable operators, and 
it is considering alternatives that may further reduce burdens on small 
entities, such as allowing website posting of certain notices. The 
Commission's evaluation of the comments filed on these topics as well 
as on other questions in the NPRM that seek to reduce the burdens 
placed on small cable operators and other MVPDs will shape the final 
conclusions it reaches, the final significant alternatives it 
considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to 
minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small 
entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    50. None.
    51. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found 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, 552, and 573, this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is adopted.
    52. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

    Cable television operators, Multichannel video programming 
distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service providers, 
Television broadcasters.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    47 CFR part 76 of the Commission's rules is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE

0
1. The authority 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.

0
2. Add Sec.  76.1600 to read as follows:


Sec.  76.1600   Electronic delivery of notices.

    (a) Written information, notices, advisements or offers that are 
generic in nature and provided in writing by cable operators to 
subscribers or customers pursuant to this subpart, 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 
if the entity:
    (1) Sends the written material to the subscriber's verified email 
address; and
    (2) Provides a mechanism to 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) The term ``generic'' means information that applies to 
subscribers or groups of subscribers generally (e.g., those residing in 
the same zip code; those subscribing to the same service, etc.) and is 
not specific to an individual subscriber.
    (d) For notices that require an opt-out mechanism, the entity must 
include, in the body of the originating email that delivers the written 
material, a mechanism for the subscriber to opt out of email delivery 
that is clearly and prominently presented to subscribers so that it is 
readily identifiable as an opt-out mechanism. The mechanism may be 
either:
    (1) An opt-out telephone number; or
    (2) An electronic link that allows subscribers to identify their 
delivery preferences electronically.
    (e) If the conditions for electronic delivery in paragraphs (a) 
through (d) 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.
    (f) In this subpart, any required written response to a subscriber 
or customer may be delivered 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.
    (g) This section applies only to written information, notices, 
advisements, offers or responses provided to subscribers or customers 
and does not affect communications between cable operators and other 
parties addressed in this subpart.


Sec.  76.1621   [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  76.1621.

[FR Doc. 2018-00151 Filed 1-12-18; 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>