53192 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). Document DA 05–2346 can also 

be downloaded in Word and Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro. 

Synopsis 

On August 2, 2005, pursuant to the 

Commission’s directive in the Two-line 

Captioned Telephone Order, FCC 05–

141, released July 19, 2005, the 

Interstate TRS Fund Administrator, 

NECA, submitted the proposed 

allocation factor for inbound two-line 

captioned telephone calls for 

compensation from the Interstate TRS 

Fund for the period July 1, 2005 through 

June 30, 2006. See letter to the Federal 

Communications Commission Secretary, 

Marlene H. Dortch from the NECA 

Director, John Ricker, proposing the 

allocation factor for two-line captioned 

telephone calls. 

In the Two-line Captioned Telephone 

Order, the Commission adopted NECA’s 

proposed methodology for determining 

the number of inbound two-line 

captioned telephone call minutes that 

will be compensated from the Interstate 

TRS Fund. The Commission noted that 

for such calls there is currently no way 

for a provider to determine if a 

particular call is interstate or intrastate. 

The Commission instructed NECA to 

determine and apply, on an annual 

basis, an allocation factor for inbound 

two-line captioned telephone calls that 

is based on the relationship between 

interstate and international traditional 

TRS calls and all intrastate, interstate, 

and international traditional TRS calls. 

NECA calculated the factor by using 

projections of traditional TRS minutes 

for 2005 and 2006 as submitted by relay 

service providers with their annual data 

submissions in January 2005. Interstate 

and international minutes for both years 

totaled 24,459,907; local, intrastate, 

interstate and international minutes 

totaled 213,957,866. Dividing interstate 

and international minutes by total 

minutes results in a proposed interstate 

factor of 11% for inbound two-line 

captioned telephone minutes. The 

remaining 89% of minutes would 

continue to be allocated to the intrastate 

jurisdiction. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jay Keithley, 

Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–17523 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket 05–255; FCC 05–155] 

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 solicits information from the 

public for use in preparing this year’s 

competition report that is to be 

submitted to Congress in December 

2005. Comments and data submitted by 

parties will be used in conjunction with 

publicly available information and 

filings submitted in relevant 

Commission proceedings to assess the 

extent of competition in the market for 

the delivery of video programming. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 19, 2005, and reply 

comments are due on or before October 

3, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 05–255, 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 telephone: 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: 

Timothy May, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

1463, TTY (202) 418–7172 or by e-mail 

at Timothy.May@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI) in MB Docket No. 05–255, 

FCC 05–155, adopted August 9, 2005, 

and released August 12, 2005. The 

complete text of this NOI is available for 

inspection and copying Monday 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 NOI 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, facsimilie (202) 863–2898, or 

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

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

Synopsis of 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. This 

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits data and 

information on the status of competition 

in the market for the delivery of video 

programming for the Commission’s 

twelfth annual report (2005 Report). We 

request information, comments, and 

analyses that will allow us to evaluate 

the status of competition in the video 

marketplace, changes in the market 

since the 2004 Report, prospects for new 

entrants to that market, factors that have 

facilitated or impeded competition, and 

the effect these factors are having on 

consumers’ access to video 

programming. Where possible and 

relevant, we request data as of June 30, 

2005. 

2. We encourage thorough and 

substantive submissions from industry 

participants and state and local 

regulators with the best knowledge of 

the questions and issues raised. We will 

augment reported information with 

submissions in other Commission 

proceedings. In the past, we have had to 

rely on data from publicly available 

sources when information has not been 

provided directly by industry 

participants. The Commission intends 

to seek out publicly available 

information relevant to this inquiry. 

Competition in the Market for the 

Delivery of Video Programming 

3. In the NOI, we ask commenters to 

provide data on video programming 

distributors, including cable systems, 

direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, 

large home satellite or C-Band dish (CBand) providers, broadband service 

providers (BSPs), private cable or 

satellite master antenna television (PCO) 

systems, open video systems (OVS), 

multichannel multipoint distribution or 

wireless cable systems (wireless cable), 

local exchange carrier (LEC) systems, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53193 

utility-operated systems, and over-theair broadcast television stations. We 

seek information on video programming 

distributed on videocassettes and DVDs 

through retail distribution outlets, over 

the Internet and via Internet Protocol 

(IP) networks. 

4. We seek information and statistical 

data for each type of multichannel video 

programming distributor (MVPD), 

including the number of homes passed 

by each wired technology; the number 

of homes capable of receiving service 

via each wireless technology; the 

number of subscribers and penetration 

rates for each service (e.g., basic cable 

service, cable programming service tier 

or CPST, premium, or their equivalents 

provided by non-cable MVPDs, pay-perview, video-on-demand (VOD)); channel 

capacities and the number, type, and 

identity of video programming channels 

offered, the channel capacity required 

for such offerings, and the available 

channel capacity of the system; prices 

charged for various programming 

packages; cost of programming inputs; 

industry and individual firm financial 

information, such as total revenue and 

revenue by individual company 

segments or services, cash flow, and 

expenditures; information on how video 

programming distributors compare in 

terms of relative size and financial 

resources; data that measure the 

audience reach of video programming 

distribution firms as well as relative 

control over the video distribution 

market; information on video distributor 

expansion into new markets such as 

local telephony and high-speed-Internet 

access, the percentage of subscribers 

taking these services, and the 

competitive advantages of offering these 

services; and information on new 

technologies being considered, tested, or 

deployed by MVPDs for video, voice 

and data. 

5. We are interested in data and 

information on the number of homes 

capable of choosing among MVPD 

services. How many households can 

receive service from one or more 

providers (e.g., DBS, wireless cable, 

PCO) as well as an incumbent cable 

provider? We seek comments and data 

on the number of consumers with access 

to wireline overbuilders, such as the 

number of homes passed by more than 

one wireline MVPD, and why the 

availability is low relative to wireless 

alternatives. As part of this request, we 

want to identify markets where wireline 

competition exists today, where entry is 

likely in the near future, and where 

wireline competition once existed but 

failed. 

6. We seek comments and information 

on the consequences for consumers of 

competition in the market for video 

programming. Has competition among 

MVPD services resulted in lower prices, 

more programming choices, better 

quality of service, more advanced 

services (both video and non-video) or 

other consumer benefits? Is there 

evidence of price competition? 

7. We also ask whether the effect of 

competition varies depending upon the 

nature of the competitors. In particular, 

we seek data on relative prices in order 

to evaluate substitution between MVPD 

technologies (i.e., what are the prices of 

similar cable, DBS, LEC, OVS and BSP 

services). Also, how should we compare 

bundled service packages, such as 

video, voice, and high-speed data, 

among MVPDs? Are there barriers to 

entry in the market for the delivery of 

video programming, including 

regulations or statutory provisions that 

prevent new entrants from promptly 

deploying their networks and offering 

consumers new video service options? 

8. We seek information on existing, 

planned, and terminated or merged 

programming services to assess the 

changes over the past year in the 

amount and type of video programming 

that is available to consumers. We 

request detailed information about 

programming networks including 

ownership, the type of programming 

services (e.g., national, regional, local) 

and the genre of programming services 

(e.g., sports, news, children’s, general 

entertainment, and foreign language). 

We also seek information on the nature 

of trends in the status of programming 

networks’ vertical integration with cable 

operators and with other media 

interests. We seek comment on 

programmers’ access to MVPDs and 

their ability to gain carriage. We request 

comment on the effectiveness of our 

program access, program carriage, and 

channel occupancy rules. 

9. We request information on 

children’s, locally-originated, and local 

news and community affairs 

programming is distributed to 

consumers. To what extent is 

programming offered in languages other 

than English, nationally and locally? We 

seek comment on cable operators’

public, educational, and governmental 

access and leased access channel. We 

ask for information on the programming 

provided by DBS operators in 

compliance with their public interest 

obligation. We also seek information on 

how video programming distributors 

package and market their programming. 

To what extent do MVPDs offer or plan 

to offer themed tiers, such as sports tiers 

or family tiers. 

10. With respect to access to 

programming by persons with 

disabilities, we invite commenters to 

provide information regarding the 

accessibility of closed captioning and 

video description. We seek information 

on the quality, accuracy, placement, 

technology, and any instances of 

missing or delayed captions, and the 

amount of digital programming that 

contains closed captions translated from 

analog closed captions. We further seek 

information on the availability of video 

description, currently provided by 

programmers on a voluntary basis. 

11. We seek comment on the 

availability and compatibility of 

customer premises equipment used to 

provide video programming and other 

services. We request information on the 

number of households that currently 

have analog television sets and the 

number of those television sets that are 

connected to an external set-top box that 

allows for the provision of various 

MVPD services. We request information 

on the number of households that have 

digital television sets and the number of 

those sets that are connected to set-top 

boxes for each type of service provided 

by such boxes. 

12. We seek information on the retail 

availability of navigation devices to 

consumers, including the number of 

such devices that have been sold and 

the obstacles to equipment 

manufacturers and others for obtaining 

approval to attach devices to MVPD 

systems. We request information on the 

development and deployment of 

electronic programming guides (EPGs), 

including the number and type of EPGs 

that video programming distributors 

offer or plan to offer to their subscribers, 

and the technologies used to distribute 

EPGs. 

13. We continue to monitor 

competition issues specific to video 

programming distribution in rural and 

smaller markets. How does competition 

differ between rural and smaller markets 

and larger and urban areas? We are 

particularly interested in information on 

the experiences of independent cable 

system operators (i.e., cable systems not 

affiliated with the largest MSOs) and the 

degree of upgrades of cable systems in 

rural and smaller markets. We request 

information on the programming offered 

in rural and smaller markets and any 

differences between these offerings and 

those available in larger markets. 

Similarly, we seek comment on any 

factors that are unique to competition in 

multiple dwelling units (MDUs). 

Cable Television Service 

14. For the 2005 Report, we seek 

updated information on the 

performance of the cable television 

industry. We request information 

53194 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 

regarding the investments that cable 

operators have made to upgrade their 

plant and equipment to increase 

channel capacity, create digital services, 

or offer advanced services. We request 

information on the deployment of 

various types and technical methods to 

increase capacity. 

15. For individual cable multiple 

system operators (MSOs), we request 

information on the number of systems 

upgraded, the channel capacity (as 

measured in terms of analog channel 

capacity) resulting from upgrades, the 

digital channel capacity resulting from 

upgrades (including the digital to analog 

compression ratio used), the number of 

systems with digital tiers, the number of 

households where digital cable services 

are available, and the number of 

subscribers to these digital services. To 

what extent is the new capacity used for 

video services as opposed to non-video 

services? We seek information on cable 

operators who have launched or plan to 

launch digital simulcasts of their analog 

channel lineups on one or more of their 

systems. How would the structure and 

price of service tiers change if a system 

becomes all-digital? 

16. We seek information on mergers 

and other cable system transactions 

during the past year, including the 

names of the buyer and seller, the date 

of the transaction, type of transaction 

(i.e., sale, swap, or trade), name and 

location of the system, homes passed 

and number of subscribers, and the 

price. We continue to monitor the 

practice of clustering, whereby 

operators concentrate their operations in 

specific geographic areas and request 

data regarding the effect of clustering on 

competition in the video programming 

distribution market. What effect does 

clustering have on economies of scale 

and scope vis-a-vis competition with 

overbuilders? 

17. We seek comment on whether 

cable operators are changing the way 

they package programming. Are cable 

operators restructuring their tiers by 

shifting programming from the basic 

service tier (BST) to cable programming 

service tier (CPST) or from these tiers to 

digital or premium tiers? To what extent 

do cable operators offer multiple CPSTs 

or digital tiers? To what extent do they 

offer themed tiers, such as a family tier? 

Where cable operators provide digital 

tiers, are they creating additional digital 

programming genre packages (e.g., 

family, sports, and lifestyle theme tiers) 

that require an additional subscription 

fee? 

18. Commenters are asked to provide 

information regarding the advanced 

service offerings by cable operators, 

such as video-on-demand, digital video 

recorders (DVRs), cable modem service, 

telephony, including Voice Over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP), and Open 

Cable Applications Platform (OCAP) 

applications. We seek information on 

cable operators that currently provide or 

plan to provide video-on-demand these 

services. 

19. We also request information 

regarding the development of 

specifications for interoperable set-top 

boxes, i.e., set-top boxes that can be 

moved from one cable franchise area to 

another and function with any given 

cable providers local system in 

CableLab’s OpenCable Process? What 

percentage of equipment is compatible 

with the OpenCable standards? We also 

seek information on the availability of 

CableCARDs, the removable security 

module which, when inserted in an 

OpenCable certified device enables the 

delivery of digital video programming 

and other services. We further ask for 

information on how many products are 

available with built-in ‘‘plug and play’’

functionality for one way digital cable 

service. 

20. Section 612(g) of the 

Communications Act provides that at 

such time as cable systems with 36 or 

more activated channels are available to 

70 percent of households within the 

United States and are subscribed to by 

70 percent of those households, the 

Commission may promulgate any 

additional rules necessary to promote 

diversity of information sources. We 

request comment and supporting data 

that would be useful for determining an 

accurate homes passed statistic, 

including the number of homes passed 

by systems with 36 or more activated 

channels. We further seek information 

regarding how many homes passed by 

systems with 36 or more channels 

actually subscribe to cable service. 

Direct-to-Home Satellite Services 

21. We seek information and data that 

explain the factors contributing to DBS’

growth in the video programming 

market and that can help us assess 

whether those characteristics will 

continue to position DBS as cable’s 

principal competitor. We seek 

information on the geographic 

characteristics of direct to home (DTH) 

subscribers. Are they more likely to 

reside in urban areas than rural areas, or 

vice versa? To what extent do DBS 

subscribers reside in areas not passed by 

cable systems? Although DBS is a 

national service, we continue to monitor 

technical limitations, such as line of 

sight, which impede the availability of 

DBS. How many or what percentage of 

households cannot receive DBS service 

because they are not within the line of 

sight of the satellite signal? We request 

any consumer surveys identifying 

differences between consumers who 

choose to subscribe to DBS or C-Band, 

rather than choose cable or another 

video programming distributor. What 

percentage of new DBS subscribers are 

former cable subscribers? 

22. We request information regarding 

the investments that DBS operators have 

made or plan to make to augment their 

satellite fleets and equipment to 

increase channel capacity or offer 

advanced services. We request 

information on current channel capacity 

and the deployment of various technical 

methods to increase capacity. We 

request data on prices for DBS 

programming packages and equipment. 

What is the typical cost of DBS 

equipment and installation? 

23. We request updated information 

on the number of markets where localinto-local television service is offered, 

or will be offered in the near future, 

pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer 

Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), 

including the number and affiliation of 

the stations carried. What is the cost to 

consumers of local-into-local broadcast 

channels? What percentage of DBS 

subscribers subscribe to cable in order 

to receive local broadcast signals? On 

December 8, 2004, the Satellite Home 

Viewer Extension and Reauthorization 

Act of 2004 (SHVERA) was enacted, 

which added new provisions to the 

Communications and Copyright Acts 

pertaining to the retransmission by DBS 

of distant broadcast signals. We request 

comment on the potential impact of 

SHVERA on DBS’ ability to compete in 

the MVPD marketplace. 

24. With respect to large home 

satellite dish or C-Band service 

providers, our 2004 Report found a 

continued decline in subscriber 

activations, caused principally by 

C-Band subscribers switching to DBS 

because of the smaller, less expensive, 

and easier to use equipment. We seek 

information about programming and 

program packages that remain available 

for C-Band subscribers. 

25. With respect to satellite delivered 

advanced services, we seek information 

on the status of current and future plans 

regarding both satellite-delivered highspeed Internet access with a telephone 

return path as well as two-way satellite 

delivered high-speed Internet access 

services offered by the satellite industry, 

including fixed satellite systems (FSS), 

DTH and DBS providers. We request 

information on set-top boxes with DVR 

capabilities, including number of 

subscribers purchasing or leasing this 

equipment. We also seek information on 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53195 

the rollout of HD programming to DBS 

subscribers. 

26. In 2002, the Commission 

established the Multichannel Video 

Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) 

in the 12.2–12.7 GHz band (12 GHz 

band), which is allocated to DBS on a 

primary basis. MVDDS spectrum may be 

used to facilitate the delivery of new 

video and broadband communications 

services, such as local television 

programming and high-speed Internet 

access. We invite comment on the status 

of MVDDS equipment and deployment. 

Local Exchange Carriers 

27. We have previously reported that 

incumbent LEC entry into the MVPD 

industry remains limited, but that recent 

developments indicated renewed 

incumbent LEC interest in providing 

video programming services. What is 

the current extent of deployment of 

these broadband networks? What are 

LECs’ future deployment plans? 

28. We seek information generally 

regarding incumbent LECs that provide 

video programming services. Are there 

any regulatory or statutory impediments 

to LEC entry in the video service 

market? To what extent are LECs 

operating cable systems? To what extent 

are LECs overbuilding incumbent cable 

systems’ service areas? Do LECs that 

operate cable systems face special 

hurdles to providing video service? Are 

the services offered by fiber to the 

premises (FTTP) and fiber to the node 

(FTTN) comparable to those available 

via cable or satellite? We request 

comment on the status of planned 

incumbent LEC IP video and Internet 

Protocol television (IPTV) deployments. 

Broadband Service Providers and Open 

Video System Operators 

29. We request information regarding 

the provision of video, voice, and data 

services by Broadband Service Providers 

(BSPs), including municipal, 

independent and competitive local 

exchange carriers (CLEC) overbuilders, 

and open video system (OVS) operators. 

Are video programming services offered 

in combination with telephone and 

high-speed Internet access services and, 

if so, how are rates affected by the 

packaging of multiple services? How 

many, or what percentage of, BSP and 

OVS subscribers purchase video service 

alone, video and telephony, video and 

high-speed Internet access services, or 

all three services? We further seek 

comment on the current and potential 

effect of BSPs and OVS providers on the 

status of video competition. We seek 

comment on the characteristics that 

facilitate BSP competitiveness (e.g., 

number of subscribers, homes passed, 

geographical reach, demographics, and 

business models). 

Electric and Gas Utilities 

30. We seek information regarding 

utility companies that provide video 

services, including the extent to which 

video programming services are being 

bundled with telephone, high-speed 

Internet access, or other utility services? 

How does the ability to offer bundled 

services affect the relative competitive 

position of these utilities? In addition, 

several utility companies have been 

experimenting with ‘‘broadband-overpowerline’’ (BPL) technology, which 

uses power lines to carry high-speed 

data signals the ‘‘last mile’’ to the home. 

We seek comment on the extent to 

which BPL technology can or is being 

used to provide video programming 

services, either separately or together 

with voice and data services. 

Internet Video 

31. We seek updated information as to 

the quality of readily available 

streaming and downloadable video. We 

are particularly interested in what 

criteria should be used to compare 

picture quality of Internet-based video 

to video programming distributed by 

traditional broadcasters and MVPDs. We 

continue to seek information on the 

types of video services currently being 

offered over the Internet both in realtime and downloadable format. We also 

seek projections of whether and, if so, 

when Internet video will become a 

viable competitor in the market for the 

delivery of video programming. 

32. With respect to IPTV, when used 

for video programming delivery by cable 

and other MVPDs, should IPTV be 

considered a separate service, or simply 

a different means of video programming 

transmission? We invite comment on 

whether and to what extent MVPDs are 

delivering IPTV over their broadband 

Internet connections, and information 

on the types of IPTV services that are 

planned or being deployed. We seek 

projections of whether and when IPTV 

will have a competitive impact on the 

market for the delivery of video 

programming. We also seek comment on 

what Digital Rights Management (DRM) 

and other security technologies IPTV 

providers use, and the effect of the 

choice of DRM on competition. In 

addition, we request comment on any 

other competitive or regulatory issues 

raised by the provision of IPTV over 

broadband Internet connections. 

Broadcast Television Service 

33. We seek data and comment on the 

role of broadcast television in the 

market for the delivery of video 

programming. We seek data on 

broadcast network and station audience 

shares, especially relative to those of 

non-broadcast programming services. 

We also request data on broadcast 

advertising revenue. To what extent has 

cable gained local, regional, or national 

advertising market share from broadcast 

television? To what extent are cable 

television and DBS retransmission 

consent negotiations providing 

broadcasters with an additional revenue 

source, either through direct 

compensation or through indirect 

benefits such as, for example, contracts 

for the carriage of affiliated 

programming? If the compensation is 

not direct, how is it accounted for? 

What forms of compensation are 

broadcasters receiving for 

retransmission consent? 

34. We invite comment and seek data 

on a broad range of issues relating to the 

digital television (DTV) transition. We 

are most interested in the ways in which 

broadcast television stations’

deployment of digital television service, 

and the DTV programming provided by 

MVPDs, impact competition in the 

video programming distribution market. 

Is the growth of DTV broadcasting 

making broadcast television a substitute 

for, or competitor of, MVPDs? We invite 

comment on current and projected 

levels of consumer access to and use of 

DTV, including over-the-air availability 

of DTV service and carriage of DTV 

programming by MVPDs, including 

satellite systems as well as cable 

systems. We also invite comment on 

programming content that is available in 

DTV formats, equipment that is used to 

receive DTV programming, and 

consumer education efforts. 

35. We request information on how 

consumers receive television 

programming, and how many of these 

households have the capability to 

receive DTV programming. We request 

data on the number or percentage of 

households relying solely on over-theair broadcast television for 

programming, as well as the number of 

MVPD households that rely on over-theair reception for local broadcast service 

on one or more of their television sets 

not connected to an MVPD, by type of 

MVPD service. We specifically request 

information on the number of 

households that are able to receive DTV 

and/or high definition television 

(HDTV) programming either over the air 

or from an MVPD. We also seek 

comments on how these subscriber 

numbers are expected to grow over the 

next several years. 

36. We seek information on the 

availability of over-the-air DTV service 

to viewers. What portion of the 

53196 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 

population has access to over-the-air 

DTV service? We request information 

regarding the carriage of DTV 

programming by MVPDs and plans to 

increase the amount of DTV 

programming carried. We request 

information regarding the amount and 

type of DTV programming (e.g., 

network, local, syndicated) currently 

offered by broadcasters. Last year, we 

reported on the efforts of several 

companies using broadcast spectrum for 

subscription video distribution via DTV 

streams. We seek updated information 

on the status of these efforts and other 

planned uses of DTV spectrum. We seek 

information regarding the equipment 

needed to receive DTV programming 

either over the air or from an MVPD. 

Wireless Cable Systems 

37. We recognize that wireless cable 

operators offer limited competition to 

incumbent cable operators. Many 

licensees of the Broadband Radio 

Service (BRS) and Educational 

Broadband Service (EBS) used by 

wireless cable operators to provide 

video service have chosen to focus on 

the delivery of non-video broadband 

services, such as high speed Internet 

service. We seek information on the 

factors that have led wireless cable 

operators to move away from offering 

video services over their platforms, 

including any concerning access to 

programming, bandwidth 

considerations, local regulatory 

considerations, and bundled service 

offerings. 

Private Cable Operators 

38. We request information on the 

types of services offered by private cable 

operators (PCOs), also known as satellite 

master antenna television (SMATV) 

operators. We seek information on the 

number of PCOs in the United States, 

the geographic areas they serve, the 

identification and size of PCO 

companies, the programming packages 

offered, and the prices of such packages 

compared to those of incumbent cable 

operators. In 2002, the Commission 

made PCOs eligible for CARS licenses, 

an action intended to enhance 

opportunities for PCOs to provide 

additional competition to incumbent 

cable operators. We seek comments as to 

whether CARS licenses are being used 

by PCOs as envisioned and whether the 

anticipated benefits are being achieved. 

Home Video Sales and Rentals 

39. We seek information regarding the 

home video sales and rental market, 

including data on the number or 

percentage of households with 

videocassette recorders and DVD 

players. We request information on the 

amount of programming available in 

DVD and VHS formats, for sale and 

rental, the cost of rentals, and how this 

compares with the cost of pay-per-view, 

video-on-demand, or near video-ondemand programming offered by 

MVPDs. We also seek information on 

Internet-based video sales and rental 

services and the effect, if any, they have 

on video distributors’ service offerings, 

such as VOD and pay-per-view. 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Providers 

40. We request information on the 

availability and deployment of mobile 

television services. How many mobile 

telephone users have access to and 

subscribe to video programming 

services? Are specialized telephones or 

other devices required to receive these 

services? How much do such services 

cost? In which markets are these 

services available? Are any other 

providers planning to launch similar 

services and is additional network 

capacity required to provide them? To 

what extent should mobile telephone 

providers that offer video programming 

be considered MVPDs? Although these 

services are just emerging, we seek 

comment on what impact, if any, they 

have on competition in the MVPD 

market. 

Foreign Markets 

41. We invite comment on the status 

of competition in foreign markets for the 

delivery of video programming to 

provide insight into the nature of 

competition in the United States and 

relative efficiency of market structures 

and regulations within the United 

States. We seek current information and 

case studies on video delivery in foreign 

markets. Specifically, we seek 

information regarding the differences 

between the United States and other 

markets in the distribution of video 

programming, including developments 

in video over IP, the digital television 

transition, and broadcast, cable and 

satellite competition. What regulatory 

models are associated with increased 

levels of competition in foreign 

markets? 

Procedural Matters 

42. Authority. This NOI is issued 

pursuant to authority contained in 

Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the 

Communications Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403, and 548(g). 

43. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex 

parte or disclosure requirements 

applicable to this proceeding pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1). 

44. Comment Information. Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before September 19, 

2005, and reply comments on or before 

October 3, 2005. 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. 

• 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 email 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. 

• 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53197 

• 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. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17705 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

[ATSDR–212] 

Public Health Assessments Completed 

AGENCY: Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces those 

sites for which ATSDR has completed 

public health assessments during the 

period from April through June 2005. 

This list includes sites that are on or 

proposed for inclusion on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and includes sites 

for which assessments were prepared in 

response to requests from the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director, 

Division of Health Assessment and 

Consultation, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 

Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop E–32, 

Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone (404) 

498–0007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The most 

recent list of completed public health 

assessments was published in the 

Federal Register on June 29, 2005 [70 

FR 37409]. This announcement is the 

responsibility of ATSDR under the 

regulation ‘‘Public Health Assessments 

and Health Effects Studies of Hazardous 

Substances Releases and Facilities’’ [42 

CFR part 90]. This rule sets forth 

ATSDR’s procedures for the conduct of 

public health assessments under section 

104(i) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 

9604 (i)]. 

Availability 

The completed public health 

assessments are available for public 

inspection at the Division of Health 

Assessment and Consultation, Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 1825 Century Center 

Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia (not a 

mailing address), between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday 

except legal holidays. The completed 

public health assessments are also 

available by mail through the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161, or by telephone at (800) 

553–6847. NTIS charges for copies of 

public health assessments. The NTIS 

order numbers are listed in parentheses 

following the site name. 

Public Health Assessments Completed 

or Issued 

Between April 1, 2005, and June 30, 

2005, public health assessments were 

issued for the sites listed below: 

NPL and Proposed NPL Sites 

Colorado 

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site—(PB2005–106307) 

Maine 

Naval Air Station Brunswick—(PB2005–

106879) 

Nebraska 

Omaha Lead—(PB2005–106280) 

New Jersey 

Standard Chlorine Chemical Company, 

Incorporated—(PB2005–106282) 

Ohio 

Armco Incorporated—Hamilton Plant—

(PB2005–107525) 

Pennsylvania 

Franklin Slag Pile (MDC) Site—

(PB2005–106326) 

Texas 

Jones Road Groundwater Plume—

(PB2005–106305) 

Utah 

Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters 

(PB2005–106277) 

Eureka Mills—(PB2005–106279) 

Non-NPL Petitioned Sites 

Louisiana 

Pab Oil and Chemical Services, 

Incorporated—(PB2005–106281) 

Mississippi 

Naval Construction Battalion Center 

Gulfport—(PB2005–106306) 

New York 

Village Liberty Water Supply System—

Elm Street Well—(PB2005–106308) 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Kenneth Rose, 

Acting Director, Office of Policy, Planning, 

and Evaluation, National Center for 

Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

[FR Doc. 05–17664 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Increasing Access to HIV Confidential 

Voluntary Counseling and Testing 

(VCT) and Enhancing HIV/AIDS 

Communications, Prevention, and Care 

in the Republics of Lesotho, South 

Africa, and Swaziland 

Announcement Type: New. 

Funding Opportunity Number: CDC–

RFA–AA239. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 93.067. 

Key Dates: 

Application Deadline: September 29, 

2005. 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Authority: This program is authorized 

under Sections 301(a) and 307 of the Public 

Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 241 

and 242l], as amended, and under Public 

Law 108–25 (United States Leadership 

Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 

Act of 2003) [U.S.C. 7601]. 

Background 

President Bush’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief has called for immediate, 

comprehensive and evidence-based 

action to turn the tide of global HIV/ 

AIDS. The initiative aims to treat more 

than two million HIV-infected people 

with effective combination antiretroviral therapy by 2008; care for ten 

million HIV-infected and affected 

persons, including those orphaned by 

HIV/AIDS, by 2008; and prevent seven 

million infections by 2010, with a focus 

on 15 priority countries, including 12 in 

sub-Saharan Africa. The five-year 

strategy for the Emergency Plan is