[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53192-53197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17705]


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

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bddd8d8aeabafdbfdf8f8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a5c59592f2a2e5a7c7979347d756c">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5a19c989a819d8cdbb8948cb5939696db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54003d393b203c2d7a19352d143237377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5a3a6a685a7a6b5acb2a0a7eba6aaa8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3157525271535241584654531f525e5c">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 (C-Band) 
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,

[[Page 53193]]

utility-operated systems, and over-the-air 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-per-view, 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

[[Page 53194]]

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 
local-into-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 high-speed 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

[[Page 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-over-powerline'' (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 real-
time 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-the-air broadcast television for 
programming, as well as the number of MVPD households that rely on 
over-the-air 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

[[Page 53196]]

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-on-demand 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 Sec. Sec.  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).
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e5b5d584d7e585d5d10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aecbcdc8ddeec8cdcd80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered 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.

[[Page 53197]]

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="771114144247433711141459101801">[email protected]</a> 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


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