27256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 15 and 76 

[CS Docket No. 97–80; PP Docket No. 00– 

67; FCC 10–61] 

Implementation of Section 304 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996: 

Commercial Availability of Navigation 

Devices; Compatibility Between Cable 

Systems and Consumer Electronics 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose 

new rules designed to improve the 

operation of the CableCARD regime in 

the interim until the successor solution 

becomes effective. As discussed in a 

companion Notice of Inquiry, the 

Commission has not been fully 

successful in implementing the 

command of Section 629 of the 

Communications Act to ensure the 

commercial availability of navigation 

devices used by consumers to access the 

services of multichannel video 

programming distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’). 

The Notice of Inquiry begins the process 

of instituting a successor to the 

CableCARD regime that has been the 

centerpiece of the Commission’s efforts 

to implement Section 629 to date. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before June 14, 2010; reply 

comments are due on or before June 28, 

2010. Written PRA comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements contained herein must be 

submitted by the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before July 

13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CS Docket No. 97–80; and 

PP Docket No. 00–67, 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 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any PRA 

comments on the proposed collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via e-mail 

to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via e-mail to 

nfraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202– 

395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, 

Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–2120 

or Alison Neplokh, 

Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Engineering Division, (202) 

418–1083. 

For additional information concerning 

the information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy 

Williams on (202) 418–2918. 

To view or obtain a copy of this 

information collection request (ICR) 

submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/ 

GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the 

section of the Web page called 

‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on 

the downward-pointing arrow in the 

‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the right 

of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, and (6) 

when the list of FCC ICRs currently 

under review appears, look for the OMB 

control number of this ICR as shown in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below (or its title if there is no OMB 

control number) and then click on the 

ICR Reference Number. A copy of the 

FCC submission to OMB will be 

displayed. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fourth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 10–61, adopted and 

released on April 21, 2010. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document contains proposed 

revised information collection 

requirements. As part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden and 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to comment 

on the following information 

collection(s). Public and agency 

comments are due July 13, 2010. 

Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0849. 

Title: Commercial Availability of 

Navigation Devices. 

Form Number: Not applicable. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 958 respondents; 

511,729,510 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 

0.000278—40 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion, 

quarterly, monthly and semi-annual 

reporting requirements; Recordkeeping 

and third party disclosure requirements. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this collection of 

information is contained in Sections 

4(i), 303(r), and 629 of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27257 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 186,287 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $137,550. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Needs and Uses: On April 21, 2010, 

the FCC released a Fourth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 

10–61, which proposes new rules to 

improve the CableCARD regime. One 

proposed rule would require cable 

operators to bill their subscribers 

separately for CableCARDs. This 

proposed rule is intended to ensure that 

consumers are charged equal and 

transparent prices for CableCARDs, in 

furtherance of Section 629 of the 

Communications Act. 

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry 

I. Introduction 

1. As discussed in the companion 

Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10–61, the 

Commission has not been fully 

successful in implementing the 

command of Section 629 of the 

Communications Act to ensure the 

commercial availability of navigation 

devices used by consumers to access the 

services of multichannel video 

programming distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’). 

The Notice of Inquiry begins the process 

of instituting a successor to the 

CableCARD regime that has been the 

centerpiece of the Commission’s efforts 

to implement Section 629 to date. In 

this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we propose new rules 

designed to improve the operation of the 

CableCARD regime in the interim until 

the successor solution becomes 

effective. 

2. To implement the mandate of 

Section 629, the FCC adopted rules in 

its First Report and Order, 63 FR 38089, 

that required MVPDs to make available 

a conditional access element separate 

from the basic navigation or ‘‘host’’ 

device, to enable unaffiliated entities to 

manufacture and market host devices 

while allowing MVPDs to protect their 

networks from harm or theft of service. 

The Commission later adopted 

standards in its Second Report and 

Order, 68 FR 66728, that largely 

reflected the terms of a Memorandum of 

Understanding between cable operators 

and the consumer electronics industry 

to establish the technical details of the 

conditional access element, resulting in 

the creation of the CableCARD. The 

CableCARD is a security device 

provided by the cable provider and 

inserted into a retail navigation device 

(including digital cable ready 

televisions) bought by a consumer in the 

retail market or a set-top box leased 

from the cable provider. 

3. Unfortunately, in practice, cable 

customers who purchase retail 

navigation devices and connect these 

devices to their cable service using 

CableCARDs for conditional access 

typically experience additional 

installation and support costs and pay 

higher prices than those who lease settop boxes from their cable company. 

Accordingly, in this Fourth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek 

comment on proposed rules designed to 

remove this disparity in the subscriber 

experience for those customers who 

choose to utilize a navigation device 

purchased at retail as opposed to leasing 

the cable providers’ set-top box. 

4. Additionally, the Second Report 

and Order included rules requiring a 

specific interface on leased set-top 

boxes to allow recording on digital 

recording devices. Multiple parties have 

raised concerns about whether the rule 

is specific enough to be effective and 

whether other interfaces could equally 

achieve this purpose. Therefore, we seek 

comment on proposed rules to more 

fully specify the functionality of this 

interface and to enable other interfaces 

as well. 

5. Finally, we seek comment on 

proposed changes to our rules that are 

intended to encourage cable operators to 

use their capacity more efficiently by 

transitioning the systems to all-digital. 

All of these proposed rules are intended 

to further the goals of Section 629. 

II. Background 

6. In the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, Congress added Section 629 to the 

Communications Act. That section 

directs the Commission to adopt 

regulations to ensure the commercial 

availability of navigation devices used 

by consumers to access services from 

MVPDs. Section 629 covers ‘‘equipment 

used by consumers to access 

multichannel video programming and 

other services offered over multichannel 

video programming systems.’’ Congress, 

in enacting the section, pointed to the 

vigorous retail market for customer 

premises equipment (‘‘CPE’’) used with 

the telephone network and sought to 

create a similarly vigorous market for 

devices used with MVPD services. 

7. In 1998, the Commission adopted 

the First Report and Order to implement 

Section 629. The order required MVPDs 

to make available a conditional access 

element separate from the basic 

navigation or host device, in order to 

permit unaffiliated manufacturers and 

retailers to manufacture and market host 

devices while allowing MVPDs to retain 

control over their system security. The 

technical details of this conditional 

access element were to be worked out in 

industry negotiations. In 2003, the 

Commission adopted, with certain 

modifications, standards on which the 

National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association and 

the Consumer Electronics Association 

had agreed in a Memorandum of 

Understanding (‘‘MOU’’). The MOU 

prescribed the technical standards for 

one-way (from cable system to customer 

device) CableCARD compatibility. The 

CableCARD is a security device 

provided by an MVPD, which can be 

inserted into a retail navigation device 

bought by a consumer in the retail 

market to allow the consumer’s 

television to display MVPD-encrypted 

video programming. To ensure adequate 

support by MVPDs for CableCARDs, the 

Commission prohibited MVPDs from 

integrating the security function into 

set-top boxes they lease to consumers, 

thus forcing MVPDs to rely on 

CableCARDs as well. This ‘‘integration 

ban’’ was initially set to go into effect on 

January 1, 2005, but that date was later 

extended to July 1, 2007. 

8. Unfortunately, the Commission’s 

efforts to date have not developed a 

competitive retail market for retail 

navigation devices that connect to 

subscription video services. Most cable 

subscribers continue to use the 

traditional set-top boxes leased from 

their cable operator. Although following 

adoption of the CableCARD rules some 

television manufacturers sold 

unidirectional digital cable-ready 

products (‘‘UDPCs’’), most 

manufacturers have abandoned the 

technology. Indeed, since July 1, 2007, 

cable operators have deployed more 

than 18.5 million leased devices preequipped with CableCARDs, compared 

to only 489,000 CableCARDs installed 

in retail devices connected to their 

networks. Furthermore, while 605 

UDCP models have been certified or 

verified for use with CableCARDs, only 

37 of those certifications have occurred 

since the integration ban took effect in 

July 2007. This indicates that many 

retail device manufacturers abandoned 

CableCARD as a solution to develop a 

retail market before any substantial 

benefits of the integration ban could be 

realized. 

9. Not only were there very few retail 

devices manufactured and subsequently 

purchased in the retail market, but there 

was an additional complication with the 

installation process that depressed the 

retail market. The cable-operator-leased 

devices come pre-equipped with a 

CableCARD, so that no subscriber 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

premises installation of the card is 

required. But this is not the case with 

devices purchased at retail. CableCARDs 

must be professionally installed in those 

devices by the cable operator. 

Unfortunately, the record reflects poor 

performance with regard to subscriber 

premise installations of CableCARDs in 

retail devices. This could be a 

consequence of the fact that only 1% of 

the total navigation devices deployed 

are purchased at retail and require an 

actual CableCARD installation, which 

may have made it difficult to properly 

train the cable installers. It could also 

reflect either an indifference or a 

reluctance by cable operators to support 

navigation devices purchased at retail in 

competition with their own set-top 

boxes. Regardless of the cause, these 

serious installation problems further 

undermined the development of a retail 

market. 

10. The Commission anticipated that 

the parties to the one-way MOU would 

negotiate a further MOU to achieve 

bidirectional compatibility, using either 

a software-based or hardware-based 

solution. When the Commission 

realized in June 2007 that negotiations 

were not leading to an agreement for 

bidirectional compatibility between 

consumer electronics devices and cable 

systems, it released a Third Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking 

comment on competing proposals for 

bidirectional compatibility and other 

related issues. In the wake of the Twoway FNPRM, the six largest cable 

operators and numerous consumer 

electronics manufacturers negotiated an 

agreement for bidirectional 

compatibility that continues to rely and 

builds on CableCARDs by using a 

middleware-based solution called 

‘‘tru2way.’’ 

III. Discussion 

11. In this Fourth FNPRM, we seek 

comment on proposed rules designed to 

improve the CableCARD regime during 

the time in which it will remain in 

effect. Specifically, we seek comment on 

whether market-based solutions serve 

consumers adequately with respect to 

switched-digital video and we propose 

rules that would (i) require that 

equivalent prices be charged for 

CableCARDs for use in cable-operatorprovided set-top boxes and in retail 

devices, and require billing of the 

CableCARD to be more transparent; (ii) 

simplify the CableCARD installation 

process; (iii) require cable operators to 

offer their subscribers CableCARDs that 

can tune multiple streams; and (iv) 

streamline the CableCARD device 

certification process. As noted, we also 

propose a change to our existing output 

requirement rules to ensure set-top box 

compatibility with retail consumer 

devices, and we propose changes to our 

rules that are intended to encourage 

cable operators to use their capacity 

more efficiently by transitioning the 

systems to all-digital. 

12. Reforming the CableCARD System. 

NCTA suggests that the Commission 

seek comment on whether the 

CableCARD has become outdated. 

NCTA explains that physical 

dimensions and components of the 

CableCARD are based on a standard that 

is more than a decade old and that new 

technologies, such as IPTV, are moving 

away from the CableCARD’s traditional 

hardware-based security model. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether technical developments over 

the last decade have overtaken the 

CableCARD model. While we recognize 

that CableCARD is an aging technology 

with certain limitations, we also 

understand that the cable and consumer 

electronics industries have invested 

heavily in the technology as both an 

unidirectional and bidirectional 

solution, and we do not believe that it 

needs to be abandoned in the near-term. 

To the contrary, we hope to build on 

this technology with relatively minor 

adjustments to our existing CableCARD 

rules to extend the viability of the 

CableCARD while the Commission 

works to establish a successor solution 

for retail navigation device 

compatibility with MVPD services. We 

seek comment on the Commission’s 

tentative conclusion that CableCARD is 

not a viable long-term solution for the 

current lack of compatibility between 

MVPD services and retail navigation 

devices, and on the Commission’s 

proposal to reform the CableCARD 

system as an interim solution as we 

work toward a new model that will 

provide for that compatibility. Given the 

Commission’s predictive judgment 

regarding the CableCARD regime, we 

also seek comment on a reporting 

requirement that we imposed in 2005, 

directing NCTA and the Consumer 

Electronics Association to file quarterly 

status reports on the status of their twoway negotiations. Should we continue 

that requirement? If so, should we make 

any changes to it? In a similar vein, we 

encourage commenters to update the 

record on petitions seeking 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

Second Report and Order in this 

proceeding. Have there been 

technological or marketplace 

developments since 2004 that the 

Commission should consider or 

developments that render any of the 

issues in those petitions for 

reconsideration moot? 

13. The Commission’s National 

Broadband Plan made certain 

recommendations designed to provide 

benefits to consumers who use retail 

CableCARD devices without imposing 

unfair regulatory burdens on the cable 

industry. The plan suggested that these 

changes could serve as an interim 

solution that will benefit consumers 

while the Commission considers 

broader changes to develop a retail 

market for navigation devices. We view 

these interim steps as an important 

bridge to the implementation of a 

successor technology, and we believe 

that these reforms will address problems 

immediately with relatively little cost. 

Specifically, the Plan recommended that 

the Commission take five steps to solve 

problems associated with the 

Commission’s current CableCARD rules: 

(i) Ensure equal access to linear 

channels for retail and operator-leased 

CableCARD devices; (ii) mandate 

equivalent and transparent prices for 

CableCARDs; (iii) ensure that 

CableCARD installations provide a 

substantially similar consumer 

experience to operator-leased set-top 

box installations; (iv) require operators 

to offer multi-stream CableCARDs to 

their subscribers; and (v) streamline and 

accelerate the certification process for 

retail CableCARD devices. We seek 

comment on proposed rules to 

implement these recommendations as 

discussed below. 

14. Switched Digital Video. UDCPs 

with a CableCARD today cannot access 

linear channels delivered by cable 

operators using switched-digital 

technology. Private industry 

negotiations have led to a market-based 

solution to allow certain types of UDCPs 

to access switched-digital programming 

through operator-provided tuning 

adapters. We seek comment on whether 

this market-based solution is working 

and whether UDCP manufacturers and 

cable operators are meeting their 

obligations under that agreement. We 

seek comment on the cost of the tuning 

adapters to consumers and cable 

operators, and any provisioning 

challenges with the tuning adapters. We 

also seek comment on whether any 

Commission action is necessary to 

ensure consumers with UDCPs have 

access to linear channels delivered 

through switched-digital technology. 

TiVo has suggested that an alternative 

solution would be to require cable 

operators to allow retail CableCARD 

devices to receive out-of-band 

communications from the cable headend and transmit out-of-band 

communications to the headend over IP. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27259 

TiVo states that this would allow 

subscribers with compatible UDCPs to 

access all linear content without the 

need for any equipment beyond a 

CableCARD. We seek comment on this 

alternative proposal, including the cost 

and feasibility of this solution for cable 

operators, and whether such a network 

solution would discourage investment 

by cable operators in switched digital 

technology. 

15. CableCARD Pricing and Billing. 

We propose rules requiring cable 

operators to charge equivalent and 

transparent prices for CableCARDs both 

for customers who purchase a 

navigation device at retail and those 

who lease a set-top box from their cable 

operator. This proposal is intended to 

ensure that subscribers are aware of the 

retail options that are available and 

associated costs, and to ensure that 

cable operators are allocating equipment 

costs fairly. We seek comment on how 

cable operators should determine 

charges for a CableCARD. Regardless of 

the method cable operators use to 

determine the lease fee, under our 

proposed rule, cable operators would be 

required to list the fee for their 

CableCARDs as a line item on 

subscribers’ bills separate from their 

host devices. We believe that this would 

better inform customers about their 

options and enable them to compare 

retail options to leasing a set-top box 

from their cable operator. This proposed 

rule also will ensure that subscribers 

who choose to use CableCARDs in retail 

devices will be leasing their 

CableCARDs at a rate equivalent to 

those who use CableCARDs in leased 

devices. We seek comment on this 

proposal. We also seek comment on the 

Commission’s legal authority to impose 

such a requirement. 

16. CableCARD Installations. In a 

similar vein, we are concerned that 

CableCARD installation costs for retail 

devices and installation costs for leased 

boxes may be disparate. To address this 

situation, we propose requiring cable 

operators to allow subscribers to install 

CableCARDs in retail devices if the 

cable operator allows its subscribers to 

self-install leased set-top boxes. 

CableCARD installation fees are 

significant, and we seek specific 

comment on why many operators 

require professional CableCARD 

installation. Furthermore, for 

professional installations, our proposed 

rule would require that technicians 

arrive with at least the number of 

CableCARDs requested by the customer. 

We seek comment on whether and how 

the Commission could enforce this rule. 

We believe that these simple rule 

changes will bolster CableCARD support 

significantly and remove obstacles that 

discourage customers from purchasing 

navigation devices at retail. 

17. Multi-stream CableCARDs. 

According to the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association 

(‘‘NCTA’’), major cable operators have 

offered multi-stream CableCARDs since 

2007, and at least one UDCP 

manufacturer offers devices that are 

compatible only with multi-stream 

CableCARDs. Multi-stream CableCARDs 

benefit consumers because they allow 

devices to tune multiple channels, 

thereby allowing consumers to record 

one channel while watching another, 

with a single card. With the monthly 

lease rate for a CableCARD exceeding 

$2.00 per CableCARD in some instances, 

multi-stream CableCARDs can reduce 

the equipment fees paid by subscribers 

by enabling them to use only one 

CableCARD per device rather than two 

or more. Accordingly, our proposed rule 

would require operators to offer multistream CableCARDs to their subscribers. 

Multi-stream CableCARDs are readily 

available, and we tentatively conclude 

that providing cable subscribers with 

the option to use them will save those 

subscribers lease fees and serve the 

public interest. We seek comment on 

this tentative conclusion. 

18. CableCARD Device Certification. 

Our final proposed rule with respect to 

CableCARD is intended to streamline 

the process of CableCARD device 

certification. Commenters have 

criticized the cost and complexity of the 

CableCARD certification process. In 

reply comments filed in response to 

NBP PN #27, SageTV described the 

CableCARD certification process as 

having limited the capabilities of the 

SiliconDust HDHomeRun CableCARD 

tuner, a device that can send cable 

content throughout the home using 

Ethernet: 

19. The major issue with this device 

is its requirement of CableLabs 

certification for anything it 

communicates with; which limits it 

exclusively to Microsoft’s Windows 

Media Center PC software use. Removal 

of the CableLabs certification for 

allowing communication with this 

device is another short-term solution 

which the Commission could adopt in 

order to immediately begin to open up 

the market for retail navigation devices. 

20. We intend to clarify that 

CableLabs or other qualified testing 

facilities may refuse to certify digital 

cable ready products only based on a 

failure to comply with the procedures 

we adopted for unidirectional digital 

cable products. Accordingly, we 

propose to modify our rules to clarify 

that the certification process may 

require only such testing; conformance 

tests outside of our adopted procedures 

would be at the UDCP manufacturer’s 

discretion. We believe that adoption of 

this rule will streamline the device 

certification process while allowing the 

cable industry to continue to control its 

system security and prevent theft of 

service. We seek comment on this 

proposed rule and will consider any 

other proposed solution to streamline 

the CableCARD certification process to 

facilitate the introduction of retail 

navigation devices. 

21. Interface Requirements. In recent 

months, the Commission has received 

three requests for waiver of the 

requirement that cable operators include 

IEEE 1394 interfaces on all highdefinition set-top boxes that they 

deploy. Comments we received in 

response to those requests made 

compelling cases that IP connectivity 

will provide consumers with the 

functionality that the IEEE 1394 

interface requirement was intended to 

provide, such as home networking. We 

also received comments that suggested 

that the Commission should require 

cable operators to activate the bidirectional capabilities of these 

interfaces to allow devices equipped 

with these interfaces to send basic 

command functions to the leased set-top 

box. 

22. We tentatively conclude that 

allowing manufacturers greater choice 

in the specific interface they include in 

their set-top boxes will serve the public 

interest by enabling connectivity with 

the multitude of IP devices in 

consumers’ homes. Accordingly, we 

propose to modify our interface 

requirement to require cable operators 

to include any of (i) an IEEE 1394 

interface, (ii) an Ethernet interface, (iii) 

Wi-Fi connectivity, or (iv) USB 3.0 on 

all high-definition set-top boxes 

acquired for distribution to customers. 

We seek comment on this proposal and 

encourage commenters to propose other 

interfaces that could further home 

networking goals. 

23. We also tentatively conclude that 

we should require cable operators to 

enable bi-directional communication 

over these interfaces. We propose that, 

at a minimum, these interfaces should 

be able to receive remote-control 

commands from a connected device. We 

also propose to require that these 

outputs deliver video in any industry 

standard format to ensure that video 

made available over these interfaces can 

be received and displayed by devices 

manufactured by unaffiliated 

manufacturers. We believe that these 

proposals will improve the functionality 

of retail consumer electronics devices 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

significantly. We seek comment on this 

proposed rule and tentative 

conclusions. We also seek specific 

comment on whether cable operators 

could implement these changes 

inexpensively with firmware upgrades, 

and if so, whether January 1, 2011 

would be a reasonable effective date for 

such a rule change. If not, we encourage 

commenters to propose an effective date 

for this proposed rule change based on 

how complex it would be to execute. 

24. Promote Cable Digital Transition. 

The integration ban went into effect on 

July 1, 2007, and since that time the 

Commission’s Media Bureau has acted 

on hundreds of requests for waiver of 

the integration ban rule. The Media 

Bureau’s basis for many of those waivers 

was to provide cable operators with 

economic incentives to transition their 

systems to all-digital, which is a more 

effective use of system capacity. We 

propose to further encourage digital 

transitions, which will make it easier for 

operators to increase broadband speeds 

and introduce other new services. 

Specifically, we propose that operators 

be allowed to place into service new, 

one-way navigation devices (including 

devices capable of processing a highdefinition signal) that perform both 

conditional access and other functions 

in a single integrated device but do not 

perform recording functions. Operators 

would still be required to offer 

CableCARDs to any subscribers that 

request them and to commonly rely on 

CableCARDs in any digital video 

recorder and bidirectional devices that 

they offer for lease or sale. This limited 

modification to our rules will allow 

operators to offer increased broadband 

speeds and more high definition 

programming without substantially 

affecting the retail market for 

CableCARD devices. We seek comment 

on this proposed rule, including 

whether this limited modification 

would affect the retail market for retail 

CableCARD devices substantially, and 

whether the potential effect on the retail 

market supports limiting any relief to 

smaller cable systems with activated 

capacity of 552 MHz or less. 

IV. Conclusion 

25. The rules we propose are designed 

to build on and bolster the existing 

CableCARD regime to remove the 

disparity in the customer experience for 

those customers who choose to utilize a 

navigation device purchased at retail as 

opposed to leasing the cable providers’ 

set-top box. We believe that these new 

rules will improve the CableCARD 

regime and will further the goals of 

Section 629 by providing potential 

consumers of retail cable navigation 

devices with more information about 

those options and eliminating barriers 

that companies face in developing such 

devices while the Commission takes 

action to establish a new solution to 

ensure the commercial availability of 

video navigation devices as proposed in 

the accompanying Notice of Inquiry. 

V. Procedural Matters 

26. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. With respect to the Fourth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’), see generally 5 U.S.C. 

603, is contained in Appendix A. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking specified infra. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis. This document contains 

proposed new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

28. Ex Parte Rules. Permit-ButDisclose. This proceeding will be treated 

as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding 

subject to the ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

requirements under section 1.1206(b) of 

the Commission’s rules. Ex parte 

presentations are permissible if 

disclosed in accordance with 

Commission rules, except during the 

Sunshine Agenda period when 

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are 

generally prohibited. Persons making 

oral ex parte presentations are reminded 

that a memorandum summarizing a 

presentation must contain a summary of 

the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Additional rules pertaining to 

oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b). 

29. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (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). 

30. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

31. 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. 

32. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

33. Effective December 28, 2009, all 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary must be delivered to FCC 

Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room 

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

34. 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. 

35. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

36. 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). 

37. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27261 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

38. Accessibility Information. To 

request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). This document can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

39. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, 

Steven.Broeckaert@fcc.gov, or Brendan 

Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the 

Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 

418–2120, or Alison Neplokh, 

Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the 

Engineering Division, (202) 418–1083. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

40. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘RFA’’) the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Fourth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on 

Review (‘‘Further Notice’’). Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

Further Notice provided above. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Further Notice, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. In 

addition, the Further Notice and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

41. Need for, and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rules. The need for FCC 

regulation in this area derives from 

deficiencies in our rules that prevent 

consumer electronics manufacturers 

from developing video navigation 

devices (such as televisions and set-top 

boxes) that can be connected directly to 

cable systems and access cable services 

without the need for a cable-operator 

provided navigation device. The 

objectives of the rules we propose to 

adopt are to support a competitive 

market for navigation devices by 

increasing customer service and by 

improving audio-visual output 

functionality on cable operator leased 

devices. 

42. Specifically, we propose rules that 

would (i) require that equivalent prices 

be charged for CableCARDs for use in 

cable-operator-provided set-top boxes 

and in retail devices, and require billing 

of the CableCARD to be more 

transparent; (ii) simplify the CableCARD 

installation process; (iii) require cable 

operators to offer their subscribers 

CableCARDs that can tune multiple 

streams; and (iv) streamline the 

CableCARD device certification process. 

The proposed billing rule would 

increase customer service by ensuring 

that cable subscribers are billed fairly 

for the equipment that they lease, 

regardless of whether it is a CableCARD 

for use in a retail device or for use in 

a device leased from the cable operator. 

The proposed installation rule would 

require cable technicians to arrive with 

the number of CableCARDs that a 

consumer requests, and allow for selfinstallation of CableCARDs if the 

operator allows for self-installation of 

leased set-top boxes. This is intended to 

reduce the difficulties that consumers 

face when having CableCARDs installed 

in retail devices and to reduce the 

number of service calls that cable 

operators and subscribers need to 

schedule. The proposed rule regarding 

multistream CableCARDs would require 

cable operators to offer subscribers 

multi-stream CableCARDs; this rule is 

intended to reduce the cost consumers 

face to use the picture-in-picture and 

‘‘watch one, record one’’ functions of 

their video navigation devices. Finally, 

the proposed rule that would streamline 

the CableCARD device certification 

process is intended to reduce the cost of 

the certification process and limit the 

influence that testing facilities have in 

the development of consumer 

electronics equipment. 

43. We also seek comment on whether 

market-based solutions serve consumers 

adequately with respect to switcheddigital video. Private industry 

negotiations have led to a market-based 

solution to allow certain types of 

unidirectional digital cable products 

(‘‘UDCPs’’) to access switched-digital 

programming through operator-provided 

tuning adapters. We seek comment on 

whether this market-based solution is 

sufficient, and seek comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider a proposal filed by TiVo that 

would require cable operators to use 

broadband signaling for upstream 

communication to ensure that certain 

UDCPs can access switched digital cable 

channels. 

44. Legal Basis. The authority for the 

action proposed in this rulemaking is 

contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 303, 

403, 601, 624A, and 629 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 

303, 403, 521, 544a, and 549. 

45. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA 

directs the Commission to provide a 

description of and, where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

that will be affected by the proposed 

rules. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental entity’’ under Section 3 of 

the Small Business Act. In addition, the 

term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A small business concern is one which: 

(1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’). 

46. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The 2007 North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) defines ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers’’ as 

follows: ‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating and/or providing access to 

transmission facilities and infrastructure 

that they own and/or lease for the 

transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 

and video using wired 

telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services; wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution; and wired broadband 

Internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for wireline firms 

within the broad economic census 

category, ‘‘Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers.’’ Under this category, the SBA 

deems a wireline business to be small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were 2,432 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 2,395 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 37 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this category and 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

47. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers—Cable and Other Program 

Distribution. This category includes, 

among others, cable operators, direct 

broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’) services, 

home satellite dish (‘‘HSD’’) services, 

satellite master antenna television 

(‘‘SMATV’’) systems, and open video 

systems (‘‘OVS’’). The data we have 

available as a basis for estimating the 

number of such entities were gathered 

under a superseded SBA small business 

size standard formerly titled Cable and 

Other Program Distribution. The former 

Cable and Other Program Distribution 

category is now included in the category 

of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 

the majority of which, as discussed 

above, can be considered small. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms 

in this previous category that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 

million. Thus, we believe that a 

substantial number of entities included 

in the former Cable and Other Program 

Distribution category may have been 

categorized as small entities under the 

now superseded SBA small business 

size standard for Cable and Other 

Program Distribution. With respect to 

OVS, the Commission has approved 

approximately 120 OVS certifications 

with some OVS operators now 

providing service. Broadband service 

providers (BSPs) are currently the only 

significant holders of OVS certifications 

or local OVS franchises, even though 

OVS is one of four statutorilyrecognized options for local exchange 

carriers (LECs) to offer video 

programming services. As of June 2006, 

BSPs served approximately 1.4 million 

subscribers, representing 1.46 percent of 

all MVPD households. Among BSPs, 

however, those operating under the OVS 

framework are in the minority. The 

Commission does not have financial 

information regarding the entities 

authorized to provide OVS, some of 

which may not yet be operational. We 

thus believe that at least some of the 

OVS operators may qualify as small 

entities. 

48. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has also developed its own small 

business size standards for the purpose 

of cable rate regulation. Under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable 

company’’ is one serving 400,000 or 

fewer subscribers nationwide. As of 

2006, 7,916 cable operators qualify as 

small cable companies under this 

standard. In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers. Industry data indicate that 

6,139 systems have under 10,000 

subscribers, and an additional 379 

systems have 10,000–19,999 

subscribers. Thus, under this standard, 

most cable systems are small. 

49. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ There are approximately 

65.3 million cable subscribers in the 

United States today. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 654,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Based on available data, we find that the 

number of cable operators serving 

654,000 subscribers or less totals 

approximately 7,916. We note that the 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million. Although it seems 

certain that some of these cable system 

operators are affiliated with entities 

whose gross annual revenues exceed 

$250,000,000, we are unable at this time 

to estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

50. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating studios 

and facilities for the broadcasting of 

programs on a subscription or fee basis 

* * * . These establishments produce 

programming in their own facilities or 

acquire programming from external 

sources. The programming material is 

usually delivered to a third party, such 

as cable systems or direct-to-home 

satellite systems, for transmission to 

viewers.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for firms 

within this category, which is all firms 

with $15 million or less in annual 

receipts. According to Census Bureau 

data for 2002, there were 270 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 217 firms had annual 

receipts of under $10 million and 13 

firms had annual receipts of $10 million 

to $24,999,999. Thus, under this 

category and associated small business 

size standard, the majority of firms can 

be considered small. 

51. Small Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this present RFA analysis. A ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

local exchange carriers are not dominant 

in their field of operation because any 

such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in 

scope. We have therefore included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this RFA, although we emphasize that 

this RFA action has no effect on 

Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

52. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (‘‘LECs’’). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 1,307 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of incumbent local exchange 

services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an 

estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 288 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses. 

53. Computer Terminal 

Manufacturing. ‘‘Computer terminals are 

input/output devices that connect with 

a central computer for processing.’’ The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for this category of 

manufacturing; that size standard is 

1,000 or fewer employees. According to 

Census Bureau data, there were 71 

establishments in this category that 

operated with payroll during 2002, and 

all of the establishments had 

employment of under 1,000. 

Consequently, we estimate that all of 

these establishments are small entities. 

54. Other Computer Peripheral 

Equipment Manufacturing. Examples of 

peripheral equipment in this category 

include keyboards, mouse devices, 

monitors, and scanners. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27263 

standard for this category of 

manufacturing; that size standard is 

1,000 or fewer employees. According to 

Census Bureau data, there were 860 

establishments in this category that 

operated with payroll during 2002. Of 

these, 851 had employment of under 

1,000, and an additional five 

establishments had employment of 

1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of these 

establishments are small entities. 

55. Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing. These establishments 

manufacture ‘‘electronic audio and 

video equipment for home 

entertainment, motor vehicle, public 

address and musical instrument 

amplifications.’’ The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category of manufacturing; that size 

standard is 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data, there 

were 571 establishments in this category 

that operated with payroll during 2002. 

Of these, 560 had employment of under 

500, and ten establishments had 

employment of 500 to 999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of these establishments are 

small entities. 

56. Description of Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements. The rules proposed in 

the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking will impose additional 

reporting, recordkeeping, and 

compliance requirements on cable 

operators. The Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking proposes a rule 

that would require cable operators to 

charge equivalent and transparent prices 

for CableCARDs. This rule change may 

require certain cable operators to change 

their billing practices. 

57. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Impact on Small Entities, 

and Significant Alternatives Considered. 

The RFA requires an agency to describe 

any significant alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

58. As indicated above, the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should adopt or revise rules relating to 

compatibility between digital cable 

television systems and consumer 

electronics equipment. The proposed 

billing rule and the proposed 

multistream CableCARD requirement 

will present a burden on small entities. 

The countervailing public interest 

benefits will outweigh those burdens, 

however, as subscribers to small cable 

systems will see reduced costs and have 

a better understanding of the specific 

equipment for which their cable 

operators are charging them. We do not 

expect that the proposed rule regarding 

CableCARD device certification or 

CableCARD installation will have 

anything beyond a de minimis effect on 

small entities. 

59. Due to the overwhelming 

consumer benefits that will derive from 

the proposed modifications to the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

did not consider alternatives to those 

proposed rules. As described above, the 

proposed rule changes should reduce 

the number of service calls that 

consumers will need to schedule, 

reduce the costs associated with using a 

video navigation device purchased at 

retail, and encourage more competition 

in the retail video navigation device 

market. 

60. With respect to the questions 

regarding whether marketplace 

solutions are providing adequate access 

to channels that are offered over 

switched-digital video, the Commission 

chose to seek comment on a proposal by 

TiVo, rather than proposing adoption of 

that proposal as recommended by the 

National Broadband Plan. Our decision 

to allow such comment will allow the 

Commission to consider the effect the 

proposal could have on small entities. 

61. We welcome comments that 

suggest modifications of any proposal if 

based on evidence of potential 

differential impact on smaller entities. 

In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act requires agencies to seek comment 

on possible small entity-related 

alternatives, as noted above. We 

therefore seek comment on alternatives 

to the proposed rules that would assist 

small entities while ensuring improved 

customer support by cable operators for 

digital cable products purchased at 

retail. 

62. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the 

Commission’s Proposals. None. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 15 

Communications equipment, 

Computer technology, Labeling, Radio, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Telephone, Wiretapping and electronic 

surveillance. 

47 CFR Part 76 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cable television, Equal 

employment opportunity, Political 

candidates, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Parts 15 and 76 as follows: 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 

307, 336, and 544a. 

2. Amend § 15.123 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 15.123 Labeling of digital cable ready 

products. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The manufacturer or importer 

shall have a sample of its first model of 

a unidirectional digital cable product 

tested to show compliance with the 

procedures set forth in Uni-Dir-PICS– 

I01–030903: Uni-Directional Receiving 

Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS 

Proforma (incorporated by reference, see 

15.38) at a qualified test facility. The 

manufacturer or importer shall have any 

modifications to the product to correct 

failures of the procedures in Uni-DirPICS–I01–030903: Uni-Directional 

Receiving Device: Conformance 

Checklist: PICS Proforma (incorporated 

by reference, see 15.38) retested at a 

qualified test facility. A qualified test 

facility may only require compliance 

with the procedures set forth in Uni-DirPICS–I01–030903: Uni-Directional 

Receiving Device: Conformance 

Checklist: PICS Proforma (incorporated 

by reference, see 15.38). Compliance 

testing beyond those procedures shall be 

at the discretion of the manufacturer or 

importer. 

* * * * * 

PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO 

AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 

3. The authority citation for part 76 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 

301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 

315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 

545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 

571, 572, 573. 

4. Amend § 76.640 by revising 

paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital 

cable products on digital cable systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Include both: 

(A) A DVI or HDMI interface and 

(B) An IEEE 1394, Ethernet, or USB 

3.0 interface, or WiFi connectivity on all 

high definition set-top boxes acquired 

by a cable operator for distribution to 

customers. Effective [Date to be 

determined in the final rule], this 

interface must, at a minimum: 

(1) Allow another device to transmit 

remote control commands via the same 

interface and 

(2) Deliver video in an industry 

standard format. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 76.1204 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 76.1204 Availability of equipment 

performing conditional access or security 

functions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The foregoing requirement shall 

not apply 

(i) With respect to unidirectional settop boxes without recording 

functionality; or 

(ii) To a multichannel video 

programming distributor that supports 

the active use by subscribers of 

navigation devices that: 

(A) Operate throughout the 

continental United States, and 

(B) Are available from retail outlets 

and other vendors throughout the 

United States that are not affiliated with 

the owner or operator of the 

multichannel video programming 

system. 

* * * * * 

6. Revise § 76.1205 to read as follows: 

§ 76.1205 CableCARD support. 

(a) Technical information concerning 

interface parameters that are needed to 

permit navigation devices to operate 

with multichannel video programming 

systems shall be provided by the system 

operator upon request in a timely 

manner. 

(b) A multichannel video 

programming provider that is subject to 

the requirements of § 76.1204(a)(1) 

must: 

(1) Include the charge for the 

CableCARD as a separate line item in 

the subscriber’s bill; 

(2) Provide the means to allow 

subscribers to self-install the 

CableCARD if the MVPD allows its 

subscribers to self-install operatorleased set-top boxes; 

(3) Provide a multi-stream CableCARD 

to any subscriber who requests one; and 

(4) With respect to professional 

installations, ensure that the technician 

arrives with no fewer than the number 

of CableCARDS requested by the 

customer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11387 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 10–91; CS Docket No. 97– 

80; PP Docket No. 00–67; FCC 10–60] 

Video Device Competition; 

Implementation of Section 304 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996: 

Commercial Availability of Navigation 

Devices; Compatibility Between Cable 

Systems and Consumer Electronics 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on ways to 

unleash competition in the retail market 

for smart set-top video devices that are 

compatible with all multichannel video 

programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) 

services. The goal of this proceeding is 

to better accomplish the intent of 

Congress as set forth in section 629 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. In particular, we wish to 

explore the potential for allowing any 

electronics manufacturer to offer smart 

video devices at retail that can be used 

with the services of any MVPD and 

without the need to coordinate or 

negotiate with MVPDs. We believe that 

this could foster a competitive retail 

market in smart video devices to spur 

investment and innovation, increase 

consumer choice, allow unfettered 

innovation in MVPD delivery platforms, 

and encourage wider broadband use and 

adoption. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before July 13, 2010; reply 

comments are due on or before August 

12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 10–91; CS 

Docket No. 97–80; and PP Docket No. 

00–67, 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 information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, 

Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–2120 

or Alison Neplokh, 

Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Engineering Division, (202) 

418–1083. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI), FCC 10–60, adopted and 

released on April 21, 2010. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the 

Commission seeks comment on specific 

steps we can take to unleash 

competition in the retail market for 

smart, set-top video devices (‘‘smart 

video devices’’) that are compatible with 

all multichannel video programming 

distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) services. Our goal 

in this proceeding is to better effectuate 

the intent of Congress as set forth in 

section 629 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. In particular, we 

wish to explore the potential for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS