Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19085 

nutrient enrichment on freshwater, 

marine, and estuarine ecosystems. 

Request for Nominations 

To augment expertise on the SAB 

EPEC for review of EPA’s nutrient 

criteria guidance, the SAB Staff Office is 

seeking nominations of nationally and 

internationally recognized scientists in 

fields such as ecology, biology, 

environmental science, risk assessment, 

statistics, and zoology. We particularly 

seek scientists with specialized 

knowledge and expertise in the use of 

empirically-derived stressor-response 

relationships as the basis for developing 

nutrient assessment endpoints and 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life. 

Process and Deadline for Submitting 

Nominations: Any interested person or 

organization may nominate individuals 

qualified in the area of science as 

described above to be considered for 

appointment to augment this SAB 

Committee. Candidates may also 

nominate themselves. Nominations 

should be submitted in electronic 

format (which is preferred over hard 

copy) following the instructions for 

‘‘Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels 

and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed’’ 

provided on the SAB Web site. The form 

can be accessed through the 

‘‘Nomination of Experts’’ link on the 

blue navigational bar on the SAB Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To 

receive full consideration, nominations 

should include all of the information 

requested, and should be submitted in 

time to arrive no later than May 18, 

2009. 

EPA’s SAB Staff Office requests 

contact information about: the person 

making the nomination; contact 

information about the nominee; the 

disciplinary and specific areas of 

expertise of the nominee; the nominee’s 

curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant 

and/or contract support; and a 

biographical sketch of the nominee 

indicating current position, educational 

background, research activities, and 

recent service on other national 

advisory committees or national 

professional organizations. 

Persons having questions about the 

nomination procedures, or who are 

unable to submit nominations through 

the SAB Web site, should contact Dr. 

Thomas Armitage, DFO, at the contact 

information provided above in this 

notice. Non-electronic submissions 

must follow the same format and 

contain the same information as the 

electronic. 

The SAB Staff Office will 

acknowledge receipt of the nomination 

and inform nominees of the Committee 

for which they have been nominated. 

From the nominees identified by 

respondents to this Federal Register 

notice (termed the ‘‘Widecast’’) and 

other sources, the SAB Staff Office will 

develop a smaller subset (known as the 

‘‘Short List’’) for more detailed 

consideration. The Short List will be 

posted on the SAB Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab and will include, for 

each candidate, the nominee’s name and 

biosketch. Public comments on the 

Short List will be accepted for 21 

calendar days. During this comment 

period, the public will be requested to 

provide information, analysis, or other 

documentation on nominees that the 

SAB Staff Office should consider in 

evaluating candidates for the 

Committee. 

For the SAB, a balanced Committee is 

characterized by inclusion of candidates 

who possess the necessary domains of 

knowledge, the relevant scientific 

perspectives (which, among other 

factors, can be influenced by work 

history and affiliation) and the 

collective breadth of experience to 

adequately address the charge. Public 

responses to the Short List candidates 

will be considered in the selection of 

the Committee, along with information 

provided by candidates and information 

gathered by SAB Staff independently 

concerning the background of each 

candidate (e.g., financial disclosure 

information and computer searches to 

evaluate a nominee’s prior involvement 

with the topic under review). Specific 

criteria to be used in evaluation of an 

individual Committee member include: 

(a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, 

knowledge, and experience (primary 

factors); (b) absence of financial 

conflicts of interest; (c) scientific 

credibility and impartiality; (d) 

availability and willingness to serve; 

and (e) ability to work constructively 

and effectively in committees. 

Prospective candidates will be 

required to fill out the ‘‘Confidential 

Financial Disclosure Form for Special 

Government Employees Serving on 

Federal Advisory Committees at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’’ 

(EPA Form 3110–48). This confidential 

form allows Government officials to 

determine whether there is a statutory 

conflict between that person’s public 

responsibilities (which includes 

membership on an EPA Federal 

advisory committee) and private 

interests and activities, or the 

appearance of a lack of impartiality, as 

defined by Federal regulation. Ethics 

information, including EPA Form 3110– 

48, is available on the SAB Web site at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/Web/ 

ethics?OpenDocument. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Anthony F. Maciorowski, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–9570 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket 07–269; FCC 09–32] 

Annual Assessment of the Status of 

Competition in the Market for the 

Delivery of Video Programming 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is required 

to report annually to Congress on the 

status of competition in markets for the 

delivery of video programming. On 

January 16, 2009, the Commission 

released a Notice of Inquiry requesting 

data as of June 30, 2007. This document 

is a Supplemental Notice of Inquiry that 

solicits additional information from the 

public to ensure that the next report to 

Congress includes information as of 

June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. The 

Commission intends to bring its 

reporting up to date and submit a single 

report to Congress covering 2007, 2008, 

and 2009. We will use comments and 

data submitted by parties in conjunction 

with publicly available information and 

filings submitted in relevant 

Commission proceedings. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments for data through June 30, 

2008, on or before May 20, 2009, and 

reply comments on or before June 20, 

2009. Comments for data through June 

30, 2009 information are due on or 

before July 29, 2009, and reply 

comments are due on or before August 

28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB 07–269, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, (202) 418– 

2127, or by e-mail at 

Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Supplemental Notice of Inquiry 

(‘‘Supplemental Notice’’) in MB Docket 

No. 07–269, FCC 09–32, adopted on 

April 8, 2009, and released on April 9, 

2009. The complete text of this 

Supplemental Notice is available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text is also available on the 

Commission’s Internet Site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418– 

7426 or TTY (202) 418–7365. The 

complete text of the Supplemental 

Notice may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Company and Printing, Inc., Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 

863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–2898, or 

by e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com, or via its 

Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

Synopsis of Supplemental Notice of 

Inquiry 

1. Section 628(g) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, directs the Commission to 

report to Congress annually on the 

status of competition in the market for 

the delivery of video programming. See 

Public Law 102–385, 106 Stat 1460 

(1992). The Supplemental Notice of 

Inquiry (‘‘Supplemental Notice’’) solicits 

additional data, comment, and analysis 

for the Commission’s 14th annual report 

to Congress. On January 16, 2009, the 

Commission released a Notice of Inquiry 

(‘‘Notice’’) seeking information, 

comments, and analyses that will allow 

us to evaluate the status of competition 

in the video marketplace, changes in the 

marketplace, prospects for new entrants, 

factors that have facilitated or impeded 

competition, and the effect these factors 

are having on consumers’ access to 

video programming. See Annual 

Assessment of the Status of Competition 

in the Market for the Delivery of Video 

Programming, MB Docket No. 07–269, 

Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 750 

(2009), 74 FR 6875 (Feb. 11, 2009) 

(‘‘Notice’’). The Notice requested data as 

of June 30, 2007. By this Supplemental 

Notice, we request additional 

information to ensure that the 14th 

Annual Report includes information as 

of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. 

2. We seek updated information and 

comment on the questions and issues 

raised in the Notice. Where possible, we 

request data as of June 30, 2008, and 

June 30, 2009. Commenters should 

provide all of the information called for 

by the Notice, as well as the additional 

information described in the 

Supplemental Notice. As detailed in the 

Notice, we ask commenters to provide 

data on video programming distributors, 

including: (1) Cable systems; (2) directto-home satellite services, including 

direct broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’) 

services and large home satellite dish 

(‘‘C–Band’’) providers; (3) other wireline 

providers, including local exchange 

carriers (‘‘LECs’’), broadband service 

providers (‘‘BSPs’’), open video systems 

(‘‘OVS’’), and utility-operated systems; 

(4) over-the-air broadcast television 

stations; (5) other wireless service 

providers, including commercial mobile 

radio services (‘‘CMRS’’) as well as 

wireless cable systems using frequencies 

in the broadband radio and educational 

broadband services; (6) private cable 

operators (‘‘PCO’’ systems), also known 

as satellite master antenna television 

(‘‘SMATV’’) systems; and (7) the 

Internet and Internet Protocol (‘‘IP’’) 

networks. 

Competition in the Market for the 

Delivery of Video Programming 

Head to Head Competition 

3. We seek data and comment 

regarding consumers’ choices for access 

to video programming and how these 

choices have changed since June 30, 

2007. Consumers generally have access 

to over-the-air broadcast television, a 

cable system, and at least two DBS 

providers. In some areas, consumers 

have access to video services provided 

by a second cable system, often operated 

by a company considered a LEC or BSP. 

In addition, some consumers have 

access to multichannel video 

programming through an emerging 

technology, such as digital broadcast 

spectrum and video over the Internet. 

What changes have occurred since June 

30, 2007, with respect to the number 

and types of video delivery services 

available to consumers? To continue to 

report on market trends, we seek data on 

the number of subscribers and market 

share for each multichannel video 

programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’), as 

of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. 

4. Since 2007, there have been a 

number of changes in the market for the 

delivery of video programming to 

consumers, including the expansion of 

the areas where Verizon and AT&T 

compete with incumbent cable 

operators and an increase in the amount 

of video programming distributed over 

the Internet. Thus, we seek data and 

comment that will enable us to evaluate 

changes in competition in the video 

distribution marketplace on an annual 

basis since June 30, 2007. In particular, 

we request comment on incumbent 

MVPDs’ responses to the entry of 

competitive alternatives for the delivery 

of video programming. Are incumbent 

MVPDs modifying their programming 

services or pricing policies in response 

to the entry of competing video 

providers? What changes have occurred 

with respect to program offerings and 

the pricing of contracts, including 

introductory discounts and cancellation 

penalties, as a result of competition 

among MVPDs? How does customer 

service impact the competitive 

dynamics among MVPDs? Is customer 

service a factor in subscribers’ choices 

among MVPDs? What other factors 

affect consumers’ decisions to subscribe 

to one MVPD rather than another? 

Impact of Regulatory Environment and 

Barriers to Entry 

5. We seek comment on the effect of 

recent Commission regulatory actions 

and their effect on competition. We also 

seek comment on Commission actions 

that have taken place since the Notice 

was adopted. To what extent have these 

actions affected competitive entry into 

the video marketplace? We note that a 

number of states have continued to 

enact franchising reform laws since the 

adoption of the Notice. How have these 

state laws facilitated or otherwise 

changed the prospects for new entrants 

into the field? We request information 

regarding the impact of new franchising 

requirements. 

Impact of Economic Environment on 

Video Programming Services 

6. Access to Capital and Investment: 

We seek comment on the impact of the 

current economic environment and its 

effect on access to capital on the market 

for the delivery of video programming. 

How have the economy, lending 

environment, and debt structures of 

media companies affected broadcasters’ 

and MVPDs’ ability to invest in new 

technologies and programming services? 

What effect does the current economic 

climate have on broadcasters’ 

operations, especially their ability to 

provide local programming? Has the 

nationwide lack of access to financial 

resources slowed down MVPDs’ capital 

investment and deployment of 

programming and/or services, including 

local programming? What impact will 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19087 

financial difficulties have on MVPDs’, 

broadcasters’, and programmers’ shortterm and long-term economic and 

strategic decisions? 

7. In previous reports, we have 

observed that cable operators, in 

particular, have invested significant 

capital upgrading their systems and 

adding new video and non-video 

services. Are cable operators and other 

MVPDs continuing to invest in system 

upgrades and service improvements? 

What effect has the recent economic 

climate had on cable operators’ and 

other MVPDs’ investments or plans to 

provide additional video and non-video 

services to their customers? 

8. Access to Revenues and 

Investment: Broadcast stations and 

networks, non-broadcast networks, 

MVPDs, and Internet sites all derive 

revenue by selling time or space to 

advertisers, but some are more 

dependent on advertising revenue than 

others. We seek comment on whether 

shifts in advertising shares among 

media represent permanent, structural 

changes within the video distribution 

industries or temporary changes due to 

the cyclical nature of advertising and 

challenging economic conditions. How 

do the shifts impact program 

distributors’ ability to invest in 

programming and new technology? 

Digital Television 

9. Since June 30, 2007, broadcasters 

have been transitioning from analog to 

digital broadcasting formats. In 

addition, MVPDs have increased the 

number of broadcast stations they carry 

in standard definition (‘‘SD’’) and highdefinition (‘‘HD’’) formats as well as the 

number of non-broadcast networks they 

carry in HD. The DTV Delay Act, 

enacted on February 11, 2009, extended 

the date for the nationwide digital 

television (‘‘DTV’’) transition from 

February 17, 2009, to June 12, 2009. See 

DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. 111–4, 123 Stat. 

112 (2009) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 

309 (j)(14) and 337(e)). We seek 

comment on the impact of the digital 

television transition on consumers, 

broadcast stations, and MVPDs. What 

has been the competitive impact on 

stations that have already ceased analog 

broadcasting? To what extent has the 

digital transition affected the number of 

households that subscribe to MVPDs? 

10. How has the availability of 

national and local programming in HD 

formats affected the competitive 

dynamics between DBS, cable operators, 

LECs, and other MVPDs? How do 

MVPDs package and price HDTV 

programming? How many HDTV sets 

are sold each year and what percentage 

of TV set sales do they represent? What 

percentage of set sales has built-in 

ATSC tuners and what percentage is 

pure monitors? Does the availability of 

HDTV programming drive sales of sets, 

or vice-versa? 

11. How many television stations 

broadcast in HD, and what percentage of 

the programming day is offered in HD? 

Of those, how many are carried by 

MVPDs? Are network affiliates more 

likely to be carried in HD than 

unaffiliated stations? With respect to 

DBS operators, what percent of the 

broadcast stations carried in HD in a 

given market are carried pursuant to 

satellite ‘‘must carry’’ (carry-one, carryall)? In what markets do MVPDs carry 

all stations in HD and not just those 

with major network affiliations? Does 

the availability of HDTV programming 

affect retransmission consent 

negotiations? We seek data and 

information on the non-broadcast 

networks and broadcast stations that 

cable operators offer in high-definition. 

What effect does the carriage of HD 

programming have on the bandwidth 

capacity of MVPDs? Are there 

differences among MVPDs in the quality 

of HD programming delivered to 

consumers? If so, have these differences 

had an effect on competition? Is the 

quality of HD programming an 

important competitive factor? How 

much capacity do MPVDs devote to 

HDTV programming, either as video-ondemand (‘‘VOD’’) or as linear channels? 

We seek information about the extent to 

which broadcast stations offer multicast 

streams of digital programming, the 

programming broadcasters carry on the 

multicast channels, and whether 

MVPDs carry these channels. 

Programming Issues 

12. We seek updated data and 

information about the programming 

issues discussed in the Notice, 

including additional information about 

regional sports networks (‘‘RSNs’’). To 

continue to report on trends in vertical 

integration, we request information on 

the number and ownership of nonbroadcast networks by cable operators, 

other MVPDs, and broadcasters as of 

June 2008 and June 2009. How does 

consolidation in the MVPD and 

broadcast markets impact the delivery of 

video programming? We also solicit 

comment on the ability of MVPDs to 

acquire specific programming services 

and the extent to which programming 

networks are able to obtain carriage by 

MVPDs. Has the entry of LECs, such as 

Verizon and AT&T, and other 

overbuilders in certain geographic 

markets affected the ability of 

programming networks to gain and/or 

retain carriage on other MVPDs? 

Advanced Services: Bundling, HSD, 

Voice, Telephony, VOD, DVRs, and 

IPGs 

13. In the Notice, we sought 

information on advanced service 

offerings by MVPDs. We seek updated 

information on the impact of the 

bundling of video services with voice 

and high-speed data services on 

competition in the market for the 

delivery of video programming services 

to consumers. In addition, we seek 

comment on developments since June 

30, 2007, regarding video-on-demand 

(‘‘VOD’’) services, digital video 

recorders (‘‘DVRs’’) and services, and 

the role of interactive program guides 

(‘‘IPGs’’). 

14. Bundling, High-Speed Data, and 

Voice Services: We seek comment on 

the extent to which MVPDs are 

bundling voice and data services with 

video services in double, triple, or 

quadruple play packages and on the 

impact of such offerings on competition. 

We seek information about the types of 

services that MVPDs intend to offer 

using the 700 Megahertz frequency 

band. 

15. Impact of Video Services on 

Broadband Deployment: We seek 

information on the extent to which the 

availability of video over the Internet— 

through services that require high 

bandwidth, such as YouTube, ITunes, 

and Amazon.com—has stimulated 

consumer demand for MVPDs’ 

deployment of ultra-high-speed 

broadband service, and vice-versa. Do 

MVPDs expect to offer tiered high-speed 

data services (e.g., low-priced, slower 

speed versus higher-priced, faster speed 

service)? If so, how would such tiering 

impact consumers’ access to video 

programming? 

16. Video-on-Demand: We seek 

updated information on the use of VOD 

for video programming distribution. Are 

programmers using VOD in lieu of 

multiplexing their programming 

networks? If so, has VOD freed up 

capacity for new networks, or do 

MPVDs need higher capacity for VOD? 

How much VOD programming is locally 

originated or concerns local subject 

matter? Has the shift in movie release 

windows affected the viability of VOD 

programming? 

17. Digital Video Recorders: What 

percentage of and types of programming 

do viewers watch live versus on a timeshifted basis via a DVR? How has time 

shifting affected the ability of 

programmers to generate advertising 

revenue? How have new audience 

measurement metrics impacted the 

ability of programming networks to 

serve niche audiences? How do trends 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

in DVR capabilities impact competition 

among MVPDs? Have services 

unaffiliated with MVPDs such as TiVo 

experienced difficulty with obtaining 

licensing agreements? 

18. Interactive Program Guides: As 

interactive television has developed, the 

functionality of electronic programming 

guides (‘‘EPGs’’) has evolved and they 

are now more commonly known as 

interactive program guides (‘‘IPGs’’). 

What role do IPGs play in consumers’ 

viewing choices? How does the demise 

of TV program listings in newspapers 

impact the role of IPGs? Are IPGs now 

the primary source for viewers to obtain 

program listings? If so, how does this 

impact the market for the delivery of 

video programming? 

Technical Issues 

19. In the Notice, we sought 

information on developments as of June 

30, 2007, covering technologies and 

technical standards developed by 

CableLabs, including middleware such 

as the Open Cable Application Platform 

(‘‘OCAP’’), CableCARDS, and 

PacketCable. We also sought comment 

on the status of navigation devices and 

the impact of the Commission 

integration ban separating security from 

non-security functions in system access 

devices. In addition, we requested 

information about advances in digital 

broadcasting, home networking, and 

content mobility developments as well 

as the impact of digital rights 

management on the deployment of new 

technologies. We seek similar 

information on the status of these 

technical issues as of June 2008 and 

June 2009, including analysis of the 

following developments. 

Set-Top Boxes and Technology 

20. Technical Standards for MVPDs’ 

Set-Top Boxes: In 2004, CableLabs 

initiated Enhanced Television (‘‘ETV’’) 

and the Enhanced Television Binary 

Interchange Format (‘‘EBIF’’) to allow 

set-top boxes already installed in 

subscribers’ households (i.e., ‘‘legacy 

boxes’’) to receive interactive software 

and programming. In 2001, CableLabs 

introduced OCAP to make it easier to 

introduce new devices and to speed the 

availability of interactive applications to 

MVPDs’ systems. In January 2008, the 

cable industry adopted the name 

‘‘tru2way’’ to brand and market OCAP 

products. EBIF and tru2way are 

complementary middleware standards 

to promote interactive television on 

cable set-top boxes. We seek updated 

information on the availability of 

tru2way-compliant and EBIF-compliant 

devices, the merits and drawbacks of 

each standard, the number of such 

devices in use by subscribers, and the 

types of services enabled by each 

middleware standard. 

21. We also seek comment on the 

strategic implications of the availability 

of these enhanced services on the state 

of competition in the market for 

delivery of video programming. How 

will the ability to offer enhanced 

advertising and other interactive 

services impact MVPDs’ ability to 

compete with each other and with 

broadcast television stations for 

audiences and advertising revenue? 

How does the availability of highlytargeted advertising affect MVPDs’ and 

programmers’ ability to offer local and 

niche programming for traditionally 

unserved and underserved audiences? 

22. CableCARDs: In 2003, the 

Commission adopted rules that allow 

television sets to be built with ‘‘plugand-play’’ functionality for one-way 

digital services. The adopted interface 

for the separation of the security 

elements is commonly referred to as a 

‘‘CableCARD.’’ Since our last report, 

cable operators have developed a multistream CableCARD (i.e., CableCARDs 

that deliver more than one channel to 

subscribers at a time) and are in the 

process of testing retail two-way devices 

equipped with CableCARDs in certain 

trial markets. We request information on 

the status of these trials and the merits 

of multi-stream versus single-stream 

CableCARDs. 

Competition Among Navigational 

Devices 

23. Technical Standards for 

Consumer Electronics: CableLabs has 

established a private negotiation process 

by which individual consumer 

electronics manufacturers may develop 

two-way plug-and-play electronic 

devices, including HDTV sets, digital 

video recorders, mobile phones, and 

personal computers that are compatible 

with cable operators’ technology 

through tru2way. We request updated 

information regarding applications 

using tru2way. 

24. Since June 2007, several consumer 

electronics manufacturers have signed 

memorandums of understanding with 

CableLabs to implement OCAP. Has 

CableLabs’s certification process for 

consumer electronic devices affected the 

deployment of two-way, multi-stream 

CableCARD devices? How do 

applications in electronic devices, 

including television sets, personal 

computers, digital video recorders, and 

mobile phones, compare with those 

leased by MVPDs to subscribers? How 

many electronic devices currently have 

multi-stream CableCARDs and tru2way 

middleware? 

25. Non-CableCARD Separated 

Security: To promote a competitive 

market for set-top boxes, the 

Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to 

separate security in their leased devices 

and rely on the same conditional access 

mechanism that consumer electronics 

manufacturers use (frequently referred 

to as ‘‘common reliance’’). In January 

2007, the Commission reiterated that 

alternatives to CableCARDs that rely 

upon a commonly-used interface 

comply with the rule requiring 

separation of security elements from 

other elements of a set-top box. The 

Alliance for Telecommunications and 

Industry Solutions, CableLabs, Beyond 

Broadband Technology, and Widevine 

Technologies are working to develop 

downloadable solutions for separable 

security. We seek comment on these and 

any other downloadable security 

solutions. Are entities that are 

developing these downloadable 

solutions working with device 

manufacturers to ensure compatibility 

with retail devices? Are they working 

with one another to ensure that retail 

devices will allow for national 

portability as well as MVPD-to-MVPD 

portability? 

Other Technical Issues 

26. Home Networking and Content 

Mobility: Home networking allows 

consumers to connect multiple devices 

in the home (e.g., set-top boxes, 

television sets, personal computers, and 

video game consoles). We seek updated 

information on the extent to which 

MVPDs are utilizing or supporting home 

networking technologies, such as those 

proposed by the High-Definition AudioVideo Network Alliance (‘‘HANA’’) or 

the Digital Living Network Alliance 

(‘‘DLNA’’). 

27. Content Protection and Digital 

Rights Management: Digital content 

protection technology seeks to prevent 

the unauthorized copying and 

redistribution of digital media. We 

request an update on what content 

protection technologies are available or 

being developed to protect digital 

media. How have copyright and digital 

rights laws, regulations, or the lack 

thereof impacted the competitiveness of 

MVPDs and their access to 

programming? 

Cable Systems 

28. Migration from Analog to Digital 

Tiers: We request updated information 

on MVPDs, including changes in the 

manner in which video and non-video 

services are being packaged and priced. 

One recent trend is the migration of 

cable programming from analog tiers to 

digital tiers, or the elimination of analog 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19089 

service in favor of all-digital systems. 

What percentage of cable subscribers 

subscribe to analog versus digital 

packages? What types of programming 

have been moved from analog tiers to 

digital tiers? How many cable operators 

have converted their systems to alldigital, and what percentage of each 

operator’s systems do they represent? 

Does one system’s decision to go alldigital drive competing systems in the 

same market to follow suit? What are 

the costs and benefits of digital 

migration to subscribers? When a 

system goes all digital, are basic tier 

subscribers required to lease or 

purchase set-top boxes? How does 

migration to an all-digital system affect 

the price of basic cable service? What 

effect does the offering of advanced 

services, such as DVR, IPG, and VOD, 

have on cable operators’ decisions 

regarding increasing the movement of 

programming from analog to digital tiers 

or going all-digital? 

29. Switched Digital Video: 

Traditionally, cable operators have 

delivered all programming feeds at the 

same time to all subscribers. Switched 

digital video is a method of delivering 

programming to subscribers only when 

those subscribers actively request that 

programming. What is the role of 

switched digital video in cable 

operators’ operating strategies? How has 

the deployment of switched digital 

video impacted MVPDs’ capacity and 

offering of programming services? To 

what extent has the deployment of 

switched digital video been successful? 

What efficiencies have cable operators 

realized through the deployment of 

switched digital and what challenges do 

they face? How does the deployment of 

switched digital video affect cable 

operators’ distribution of programming 

networks? What are the costs and 

benefits of switched digital video to 

consumers? 

30. Carriage of Broadcast Stations in 

Standard and High Definition Digital 

Formats: In September 2007, the 

Commission adopted a Third Report 

and Order and Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking requiring cable 

operators to either (1) deliver must-carry 

stations’ broadcast digital signals in 

digital format to all digital cable 

subscribers and convert the signals to 

analog format at their headends for all 

subscribers or (2) for all-digital systems, 

deliver the must-carry stations’ 

broadcast signals in digital format to all 

subscribers in the systems. See Carriage 

of Digital Broadcast Signals: 

Amendment to Part 76 of the 

Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98– 

120, Third Report and Order and Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

FCC Rcd 21064 (2007). Small cable 

systems with 552 MHz or less 

bandwidth that lack the capacity to 

carry the additional digital must-carry 

stations may request a waiver of the 

carriage requirement. We seek comment 

on the extent to which systems downconvert DTV signals to analog to make 

them available to subscribers without 

the need for a set-top box. In September 

2008, the Commission released a Fourth 

Report and Order, which, in part, 

exempts certain cable systems from the 

material degradation requirement to 

carry broadcast signals in HD format. 

See Carriage of Digital Broadcast 

Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the 

Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98– 

120, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC 

Rcd 13618 (2008). The systems must 

either 1) have 2,500 or fewer subscribers 

and be unaffiliated with a large cable 

operator, or 2) have an activated 

channel capacity of 552 MHz or less. 

How many systems with 552 MHz or 

less carry HDTV networks or stations? Is 

the lack of HD programming a 

competitive disadvantage? 

Direct-To-Home Satellite Services 

31. Direct-to-home satellite services 

include DBS and C-band. In addition to 

information requested in the Notice, we 

are interested in how the digital 

transition has affected competition 

between DBS and cable operators in 

markets where DBS does not offer localinto-local broadcast television service. 

How has the availability or lack of localinto-local service impacted consumers’ 

readiness for the digital television 

transition? Do households drop DBS 

subscriptions in order to receive DTV 

programming from another MVPD? We 

also request information regarding how 

broadcast stations deliver their signals 

to DBS operators, e.g., over-the-air 

reception or alternative feeds, and we 

seek comment on the extent to which 

multiple DBS operators share local 

reception facilities. The number of 

subscribers to C-band video service has 

been declining in recent years. Does this 

trend continue? If so, is C-band still a 

viable option for multichannel video 

programming service? 

Other Wireline Service Providers 

32. The Notice solicited comments 

regarding other wireline video 

programming distributors, including 

local exchange carriers, broadband 

service providers, open video system 

operators, and electric and gas utilities. 

We seek information on these MVPD 

services for 2008 and 2009 as well as the 

following additional information. 

33. Local Exchange Carriers: In the 

13th Annual Report, we observed that 

LECs, most notably Verizon and AT&T, 

have expanded the areas where they 

provide facilities-based video services. 

What factors determine whether these 

companies or other LECs enter the video 

marketplace? Have the Commission’s 

revised franchising rules or state 

franchising laws had an impact on LEC 

video services? In addition, several 

LECs offer video services through 

marketing agreements with DBS 

operators. We request updated 

information regarding these agreements 

as well as the bundles of services that 

LECs offer in competition with cable 

operators. Do LECs compete on price? If 

not, why not? Do they offer 

differentiated tiers? How does the 

amount of HD, VOD, and other 

programming offered by LECs compare 

with similar offerings from other 

MVPDs? Do LECs provide local 

programming? Do they offer any 

programming comparable to public, 

educational, and government access 

(‘‘PEG’’) programming? How does the 

quality of LECs’ customer service 

compare with that of other MVPDs? 

What percentage of new LEC customers 

come from other MVPDs versus 

households relying exclusively on overthe-air reception? We seek comments on 

what, if any, unique competitive 

advantages LECs have in comparison 

with other MVPDs. 

Broadcast Television Service 

34. Over-the-Air-Only Households: 

Consumers who do not subscribe to an 

MVPD service typically rely on overthe-air (‘‘OTA’’) reception of local 

broadcast television signals. MVPD 

subscribers may rely on OTA reception 

on some of their television sets. How 

many television households rely 

exclusively on OTA reception, and how 

many MVPD subscribers rely on OTA 

reception for at least one television set? 

Of those television sets, how many are 

analog, digital-ready, or connected to a 

digital converter box? Some MVPDs are 

offering introductory discounts to attract 

new subscribers from OTA-only 

households. Is the digital transition 

driving such households to subscribe to 

MVPDs? On the other hand, is the 

digital transition causing MVPD 

subscribers to drop their service and 

rely on free, OTA television? Are 

broadcast-only households replacing 

analog sets with digital sets or HDTV 

sets? Does the need for consumers to 

upgrade broadcast antennas to receive 

DTV over-the-air in some situations 

affect consumers’ decision to switch 

from OTA reception to MVPD 

subscribership? 

35. Multicasting: Multicasting is the 

process by which multiple streams of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

digital television programming are 

transmitted at the same time over a 

single 6 MHz broadcast channel. We 

seek information on the types of 

services and content that broadcasters 

are transmitting using multicasting. In 

addition, we seek information on 

whether multicasting is limited to large 

markets, or if stations in small and 

medium-sized markets are also using 

their multicasting capabilities. What 

types of multicast programming are 

available? How much multicast 

programming is locally produced or 

locally focused? To what extent is the 

provision of multicast service 

dependent upon its carriage by cable 

and other MVPD operators? In how 

many markets are cable operators and 

other MVPDs carrying broadcasters’ 

multicast programming, and which 

markets are they doing so? How has the 

financial climate and postponement of 

the digital television transition 

impacted broadcasters’ roll-out of 

multicast networks? 

36. Must-Carry and Retransmission 

Consent: Every three years, broadcast 

stations elect whether they want to be 

carried on cable systems under must 

carry or retransmission consent. 

Similarly, broadcast stations may elect 

whether to be carried under must carry 

or retransmission consent in markets 

where DBS operators offer local-intolocal service. The most recent election 

was on October 1, 2008, for carriage 

agreements beginning on January 1, 

2009. What types of local stations 

receive compensation pursuant to 

retransmission consent versus carriage 

pursuant to must carry? What types of 

compensation do broadcasters receive 

from MVPDs in return for carriage? Are 

broadcasters compensated in cash or 

through in-kind arrangements? To what 

extent do broadcast station owners tie 

carriage of affiliated non-broadcast 

networks to carriage of their broadcast 

signals? 

Other Wireless Service Providers 

37. Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Providers: As discussed in the Notice, 

major commercial mobile radio service 

(‘‘CMRS’’) providers have begun offering 

video services to users of cell phones 

and other mobile services. We request 

updated information on the availability 

and deployment of mobile video 

services offered by CMRS providers as 

of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. 

Specifically, how many mobile 

telephone users have access to, and 

subscribe to, such services? Has the 

availability of such services increased 

and how have subscription rates 

changed over time? To what extent are 

CMRS providers offering mobile video 

services over their own spectrum 

licenses and networks, and to what 

extent are they partnering with third 

parties? We request information 

regarding programming agreements 

between video content providers and 

CMRS providers. Do current trends in 

mobile video suggest that we should 

classify CMRS providers that offer video 

programming as MVPDs? 

38. We also request updated 

information on video distribution to 

wireless devices—including iPods, 

personal digital assistants, and portable 

media players—that are not connected 

to CMRS networks. To what extent do 

consumers use wireless connections, 

personal computer sideloading, and 

other methods to receive video content 

on wireless devices? How have the 

distribution methods and technologies 

changed since June 30, 2007? We seek 

updated information on how video 

programmers are re-purposing 

traditional broadcast and non-broadcast 

programming for viewing on these 

devices, and the extent to which 

programmers are creating content 

specifically for these new devices. 

39. What types of programming do 

broadcasters intend to provide via 

mobile digital television? Do they plan 

to include local news and emergency 

broadcasting? What are the advantages 

of mobile video provided by 

broadcasters versus other providers? We 

also request information on whether and 

how video programmers will use new, 

IP-based wireless network 

technologies—such as Worldwide 

Interoperability for Microwave Access 

(‘‘WiMAX’’) and Long Term Evolution 

(‘‘LTE’’)—to deliver mobile video 

programming. We seek comment on the 

extent to which video services offered 

using these technologies will compete 

with those offered by traditional video 

providers. 

40. Wireless Cable Systems: We seek 

updated information on existing 

wireless cable systems and the video 

and non-video services they offer. How 

many wireless cable systems remain, 

and how many customers do they serve? 

Do licensees in these services remain 

viable competitors in the market for the 

delivery of video programming? 

41. Private Cable Operators: Private 

cable operator (‘‘PCO’’) systems, also 

known as satellite master antenna 

(‘‘SMATV’’) systems, are video 

distribution facilities that do not use 

any public rights-of-way. In the 13th 

Annual Report, we reported that PCOs 

serve a decreasing number of 

subscribers, representing less than one 

percent of all MVPD subscribers as of 

June 2006. Has this trend continued into 

2008 and 2009? Do PCOs remain viable 

competitors in the market for the 

delivery of video programming? 

Web-Based Internet Video 

42. Programming Network Delivery 

via Web Sites: Programmers and content 

creators are offering an increasing 

amount of video programming over the 

Internet. How is the availability of 

traditional broadcast programming on 

other outlets affecting the role of 

broadcast stations and MVPDs as 

distributors? How do licensing and 

copyright issues impact competition for 

the distribution of video programming 

over the Internet? Has the availability of 

programming online led to consumers 

‘‘cord cutting’’ (i.e., cancelling MVPD 

service subscriptions) or no longer 

viewing OTA broadcast television? 

43. Direct Streaming of Programming 

Networks to Consumer Electronics: In 

early 2009, consumer electronics 

manufacturers announced that they plan 

to increase the number of television sets 

and DVD players that incorporate 

streaming technology to enable viewers 

to watch IP-delivered video. How does 

the ability to stream video programming 

over computers and television sets 

impact the demand for MVPD service? 

We seek information about 

developments relating to the 

distribution of Web-based Internet 

video. 

A. Foreign Markets 

44. In previous reports, we have 

examined foreign markets because 

developments in other countries can 

lend insight into the nature of 

competition in the United States and the 

relative efficiency of market structures 

and regulations within our nation. We 

again seek information and case studies 

on video delivery in foreign markets, 

including the transition to digital 

television, the emergence of IPTV as a 

competitor in the MVPD market, and the 

implications of both these trends for 

market structure and consumer choices. 

We also seek information regarding 

recent developments in pricing and 

packaging of programming, including a 

la carte offerings and the degree to 

which consumers can choose channels 

in bundles or singly; technological 

developments; developments in VoIP; 

and broadcast, cable, and satellite 

competition. We also ask commenters to 

provide comparisons of the video 

programming choices available to 

consumers between the United States 

and other countries. In addition, we 

seek comment about the impact of 

global technical standards on the 

development of video programming 

services and technology within the 

United States. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19091 

II. Procedural Matters 

45. Authority. This Supplemental 

Notice is issued pursuant to authority 

contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 

628(g) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 403, and 548(g). 

46. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex 

parte or disclosure requirements 

applicable to this proceeding pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.1204(b) (1). 

47. Comment Information. Pursuant 

to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on the Supplemental Notice 

of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 07–269, for 

2008 information, on or before May 20, 

2009, and reply comments on or before 

June 20, 2009. For 2009 information, 

interested parties may file comments on 

or before July 29, 2009, and reply 

comments on or before August 28, 2009. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

Æ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• In addition, parties must serve the 

following with either an electronic copy 

via e-mail or a paper copy of each 

pleading: (1) The Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160, or 

via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com; 

(2) Marcia Glauberman, Media Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 2–C264, 

Marcia.Glauberman@fcc.gov; and (3) 

Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room 2–C222, 

Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–9550 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket 07–269; DA 09–794] 

Annual Assessment of the Status of 

Competition in the Market for the 

Delivery of Video Programming 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is required 

to report annually to Congress on the 

status of competition in markets for the 

delivery of video programming. This 

document further extends the deadlines 

for filing comments and reply comments 

in response to the notice of inquiry for 

the 14th Annual Report to Congress, 

which requested data as of June 2007. 

The Commission needs to bring its 

reporting up to date and will issue a 

single report for 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

The Commission previously announced 

that it would establish concurrent 

comment and reply deadlines for 2007 

and 2008 data. On April 8, 2009 the 

Commission adopted a supplemental 

notice of inquiry to request information 

for 2008 and 2009. The supplemental 

notice established May 20, 2009 as the 

comment deadline for the filing of 2008 

information, and June 20, 2009 as the 

reply comment deadline. This 

document adopts comment and reply 

comment deadlines for 2007 

information that are concurrent with 

those filing dates. A single set of 

deadlines for 2007 and 2008 will avoid 

duplication of effort by commenters and 

streamline Commission review of the 

submitted information. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before May 20, 2009, 

and reply comments on or before June 

20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB 07–269, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/efcs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Scherer, Media Bureau at (202) 

418–2127. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Media Bureau’s Order in 

MB Docket No. 07–269, DA 09–794, 

adopted and released on April 8, 2009. 

The complete text of this Order is 

available for inspection and copying 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC’s Reference Information Center, 

Room CY–A257, Portals II, 445 Twelfth 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text is also available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

contacting the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES