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
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27265 

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. 

2. More specifically, we introduce the 

concept of an adapter that could act 

either as a small ‘‘set-back’’ device for 

connection to a single smart video 

device or as a gateway allowing all 

consumer electronics devices in the 

home to access multichannel video 

programming services. Unlike the 

existing cable-centric CableCARD 

technology, this adapter could make 

possible the development and marketing 

of smart video devices that attach to any 

MVPD service anywhere in the United 

States, which could greatly enhance the 

incentives for manufacturers to enter the 

retail market. As conceived, the adapter 

would communicate with the MVPD 

service, performing the tuning and 

security decryption functions that may 

be specific to a particular MVPD; the 

smart video device would perform 

navigation functions, including 

presentation of programming guides and 

search functionality. The Commission 

seeks comment on this concept. We also 

invite any alternative proposals that 

would achieve the same objective of 

eliminating barriers to entry in the retail 

market for smart video devices that are 

compatible with all MVPD services. 

3. The Commission envisions that the 

proposal adopted in this proceeding 

would be a successor technology to 

CableCARD. We predict that smart 

video devices built to new standards 

that would be adopted through this 

proceeding would eventually replace 

CableCARD devices on retail shelves. 

Accordingly, in this Notice of Inquiry 

the Commission also seeks comment on 

the future of the CableCARD regime. We 

are separately releasing a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to address a 

number of CableCARD implementation 

issues pending the completion of a 

successor regime. 

II. Background 

4. In the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, Congress added section 629 to the 

Communications Act. Section 629 

directed 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.’’ In 

enacting the section, Congress 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. 

5. Congress was prescient in enacting 

section 629 in 1996. In analog cable 

systems, which were common 

throughout the 1990s, most consumers 

could connect their ‘‘cable ready’’ video 

cassette recorders and television sets 

directly to a cable operator’s system 

without the need for any other 

equipment. During that time, many 

people became accustomed to and 

appreciated the convenience of the 

‘‘plug and play’’ aspect of connecting a 

coaxial cable from the wall directly into 

a television set to receive their video 

programming service. But this analog 

‘‘plug and play’’ technology was unable 

to support advancements in video 

delivery technology such as digital 

cable, bidirectional video services such 

as pay-per-view, and the emergence of 

competitive services from Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) providers, 

which were widely available by 2000. 

These new developments required the 

use of more advanced encryption and 

encoding techniques and bidirectional 

communication, among other functions, 

and the MVPDs built this capability into 

proprietary set-top boxes. 

6. The Commission has adopted 

regulations in response to the statutory 

mandate in section 629 to ensure retail 

competition in the ‘‘navigation device’’ 

market. Those regulations have enabled 

competitors such as TiVo and Moxi to 

enter the market. However, the 

Commission’s rules as they currently 

exist have yet to realize Congress’ 

charge to develop a fully competitive 

retail market. 

7. The Commission adopted its first 

Report and Order, 63 FR 38089, to 

implement section 629 in 1998. The 

Report and Order required MVPDs to 

make available a conditional access 

element separate from the basic 

navigation device, in order to permit 

unaffiliated manufacturers and retailers 

to manufacture and market navigation 

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 standards on 

which the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association and 

the Consumer Electronics Association 

had agreed in a Memorandum of 

Understanding (‘‘MOU’’), with certain 

modifications. The MOU prescribed the 

technical standards for ‘‘CableCARD’’ 

compatibility. The CableCARD is a 

security device provided by an MVPD, 

which can be inserted into a set-top box 

or television set bought by a consumer 

in the retail market and enable 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. The Commission’s rules require 

cable operators to support only one-way 

plug-and-play capability for retail 

CableCARD devices. This largely 

reflects the absence of a proven market 

for two-way services when negotiations 

began, and a desire within the industry 

to achieve consensus on how to assure 

access to the most basic services first 

and not await the conclusion of 

negotiations regarding access to new 

services that might be introduced later. 

Accordingly, the Commission’s rules do 

not require cable operators to provide 

access for retail devices to two-way 

services such as interactive program 

guides, pay-per-view, or video-ondemand services, which were nascent 

services in 2003 and would have 

required complex and lengthy technical 

consideration. For that reason among 

others, retail CableCARD devices have 

not been able to offer all of the cable 

services available to subscribers who 

lease their set-top boxes from the cable 

operator. This is partially responsible 

for the failure of the CableCARD 

solution to create a strong retail market 

for navigation devices. 

9. Furthermore, although the 

CableCARD rules nominally apply to all 

MVPDs, the Commission exempted 

MVPDs that operate throughout the 

United States and offer devices for retail 

sale through unaffiliated vendors. In 

practice, this means that DBS operators 

are not subject to these rules. More 

recent entrant AT&T does not provide 

CableCARD devices, and Verizon 

supports CableCARDs to a limited 

extent, but not for its advanced IP 

services. The Commission also has 

given numerous integration ban waivers 

to cable operators who have 

demonstrated good cause for waiver, 

such as cable operators in financial 

distress and cable operators who have 

upgraded their systems to all-digital. 

While numerous, these integration ban 

waivers involve a de minimis number of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

cable subscribers nationwide. The 

Commission also started granting 

waivers for low-cost, limited capability 

set-top boxes and, although these 

waivers will result in more than a de 

minimis number of subscribers 

receiving these boxes, these boxes are 

able to access only one-way services and 

provide a substantial public interest 

benefit by significantly reducing costs to 

consumers for these low-end services. 

10. Unfortunately, the Commission’s 

efforts to date have not led to a robustly 

competitive retail market for 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 (‘‘UDCPs’’), 

most manufactures have abandoned the 

technology. Indeed, since July 1, 2007, 

cable operators have deployed only 

456,000 CableCARDs for installation in 

retail devices, compared with their 

deployment of more than 17.7 million 

leased devices pre-equipped with 

CableCARDs since the integration ban 

went into effect. 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, with the 

exceptions of TiVo, Moxi, and 

CableCARD-equipped home theater 

computers, retail device manufacturers 

have abandoned CableCARD technology 

before any substantial benefits of the 

integration ban could be realized. 

11. The Commission anticipated that 

the parties to the MOU would negotiate 

a further agreement to achieve two-way 

compatibility, using either a softwarebased or hardware-based solution. 

When the Commission realized in June 

2007 that negotiations were not leading 

to an agreement for two-way 

compatibility between consumer 

electronics devices and cable systems, it 

released a Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 40818, 

seeking comment on competing 

proposals for two-way compatibility and 

other related issues. In the wake of this 

Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the six largest cable 

operators and a number of consumer 

electronics manufacturers negotiated an 

agreement for bidirectional 

compatibility that continues to rely and 

build on CableCARDs by using a 

middleware-based solution called 

‘‘tru2way.’’ 

12. We are not convinced that the 

tru2way solution will assure the 

development of a commercial retail 

market as directed by Congress. As an 

alternative, we seek to explore the 

potential for fulfilling this statutory 

directive by providing consumer 

electronics manufacturers with the 

ability to build smart video navigation 

devices that can access MVPD content 

regardless of the delivery technology the 

provider employs and to ensure that 

necessary licensing agreements do not 

contain contractual terms that limit the 

functionality of the devices. Although 

tru2way is designed to be a two-way 

solution for traditional cable operators, 

it requires manufacturers to sign a 

license agreement that contains 

limitations that may hinder innovation. 

For example, the agreement limits a 

device’s ability to integrate video from 

multiple sources into a consistent 

viewing experience by limiting the 

presentation and content of a tru2way 

device’s graphical user interface. This 

could prevent a tru2way device from 

searching a consumer’s computer, DVR, 

Netflix account, and cable-operatorprovided video on demand offerings for 

a particular film or for films that include 

the consumer’s favorite actor. 

Furthermore, tru2way is an unworkable 

solution for DBS and other non-cable 

providers. Even service from a cable 

provider like Verizon, which provides 

most of its video using the same QAM 

delivery technology as traditional cable 

operators, but uses Internet Protocol 

(‘‘IP’’) for interactive functions such as 

video-on-demand, currently is not 

compatible with tru2way. Finally, the 

fact that the DBS providers are the 

second and third largest MVPDs, 

continue to gain market share, and yet 

are not subject to the integration ban 

also may be impeding the development 

of a vibrant retail market by artificially 

limiting the market for competitive 

retail devices. Despite the importance of 

being able to expand the retail market to 

reach the DBS providers’ networks, 

most consumer electronics 

manufacturers acknowledge that an 

attempt to establish standards for 

navigation devices that would work 

with each of the different delivery 

technologies without some 

intermediation would be impractical 

and prohibitively expensive. 

13. The approaches considered to date 

have a number of inherent limitations. 

Both the one-way CableCARD and 

tru2way approaches focus on television 

sets and digital video recorders (‘‘DVRs’’) 

as the initial consumer device, with that 

device housing security (through the 

CableCARD), tuning, and navigation 

functions. Yet delivery platforms 

continue to evolve at a rapid pace. As 

these delivery platforms evolve, 

consumers may need to upgrade or 

replace their devices to maintain 

compatibility with those delivery 

platforms, even if the device is still 

physically sound. It is impractical to 

expect consumers to spend hundreds of 

dollars to replace their television sets or 

set-top boxes to accommodate each 

delivery innovation. A subscriber can 

avoid that risk by renting an HD set-top 

box from a cable operator for an average 

cost of $8.22 per month. This disparity 

can be expected to perpetuate reliance 

on cable operators’ set-top leasing 

model and undermine development of a 

vigorous retail market in navigation 

devices even if tru2way is successfully 

deployed. 

14. On December 3, 2009, the 

Commission’s Omnibus Broadband 

Initiative (‘‘OBI’’) released a Public 

Notice (‘‘NBP PN #27’’) seeking 

comment on four issues related to the 

ability of manufacturers to compete and 

innovate in the video device market. 

Specifically, the Public Notice sought 

comment on (i) the technological and 

market-based limitations that prevent 

retail devices from accessing all types of 

content; (ii) whether a retail market for 

network-agnostic video devices could 

spur broadband use and adoption and 

achieve the goals of section 629; (iii) 

whether the home broadband service 

model could be adapted to provide for 

audio-visual device connectivity; and 

(iv) what obstacles may hinder 

convergence of internet and MVPDprovided video. Commenters generally 

agreed that the technological limitations 

that prevent devices from accessing all 

types of content can be traced to the 

different conditional access schemes, 

delivery technologies, and platforms 

that MVPDs use. Commenters expressed 

some disagreement about whether 

network-agnostic video devices would 

spur broadband use and adoption, but 

generally agreed that true network 

agnosticism is a laudable goal for 

navigation devices. Commenters also 

generally agreed that the home 

broadband service model could be 

adapted to provide for audio-visual 

device connectivity, but some disagreed 

about the specific methods that should 

be used for such connectivity. Finally, 

commenters generally agreed that the 

obstacles that hinder convergence of 

Internet and MVPD-provided video are 

divergent delivery technologies and 

content protection methods. Certain 

commenters also cited business 

practices that deter entry into the 

market. NCTA recently filed a letter 

expressing its members’ commitment to 

a set of principles largely supportive of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27267 

our objectives in launching this 

proceeding. 

III. Discussion 

15. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek 

comment on ways to achieve the 

objective that Congress established 

nearly fifteen years ago. While MVPD 

services have become far more robust in 

the intervening years, for the most part 

the consumer experience with respect to 

the equipment that is required to access 

those services has not. Consumers have 

shown limited interest in purchasing 

retail devices that can access MVPD 

services under our existing rules, and 

we believe that two fundamental defects 

in the current regime account for this 

reluctance. First, with few exceptions 

retail navigation devices are unable to 

provide functionality beyond that 

available in devices that subscribers can 

lease from their providers and often are 

unable to access many of the MVPD 

services that leased set-top devices are 

able to access. Second, as a general 

matter a retail navigation device 

purchased for use with one MVPD’s 

services cannot be used with the 

services of a competing MVPD. We seek 

comment on these premises, and we 

invite commenters to offer other 

explanations for the failure of a retail 

market for navigation devices to emerge. 

16. Assuming that these premises are 

in the main correct, we propose a 

solution that could address these two 

fundamental problems and seek 

comment on them. We believe that the 

concept discussed below could give 

device manufacturers the ability to 

develop ‘‘smart’’ products that can 

access any service that an MVPD 

provides without the need to enter into 

restrictive license agreements with 

MVPDs. The concept also could give 

device manufacturers the ability to 

develop smart video devices that can 

access MVPD programming regardless of 

the delivery technology that the MVPD 

uses. Accordingly, we introduce and 

seek comment on a model that would 

require MVPDs to provide a small, lowcost adapter that would connect to 

proprietary MVPD networks and would 

provide a common interface for 

connection to televisions, DVRs, and 

other smart video devices, as described 

below. This adapter, a further 

development of the concept of the 

‘‘gateway device’’ recommended in 

Chapter 4 of the National Broadband 

Plan, would perform the conditional 

access functions as well as tuning, 

reception, and upstream communication 

as directed by the smart video device. 

The adapter and the smart video device 

would communicate with each other 

using a standard interface, but each 

adapter would be system-specific to a 

particular MVPD in order to 

communicate with its network. 

Innovations in a MVPDs’ delivery 

technology might require substitution of 

a new adapter but would not require the 

consumer to replace her smart video 

device or other in-home equipment. 

While the Commission seeks comment 

on this concept, we also encourage 

commenters to present other proposals 

that would remove barriers to the 

establishment of a retail market for 

smart video devices compatible with all 

MVPD services. If commenters disagree 

that the root problems involve limits on 

device functionality and portability 

across MVPDs, we invite them to 

identify what they believe are the 

obstacles to a competitive retail market 

in navigation devices and to propose 

solutions. 

17. The AllVid Concept. Ideally, the 

Commission’s all video (‘‘AllVid’’) 

solution would work for all MVPDs and 

lead to a nationwide interoperability 

standard, much as Ethernet and the 

IEEE 802.11 standards have led to 

nationwide interoperability for 

customer data networks while allowing 

broadband service providers to deploy 

differing proprietary network 

technologies. The AllVid solution 

would be designed to accommodate any 

delivery technology that an MVPD 

chooses to use and allow MVPDs to 

continue unfettered innovation in video 

delivery, because the MVPD-provided 

AllVid adapter, rather than the 

consumer-owned smart video device, 

would be responsible for all 

communication with the MVPD. At the 

same time, it would allow consumer 

electronics manufacturers to design to a 

stable interface and to integrate multiple 

functions within a retail device. This 

approach would provide the necessary 

flexibility for consumer electronics 

manufacturers to develop new 

technologies, including combining 

MVPD content with over-the-top video 

services (such as videos offered from, 

for example, Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, or 

NetFlix), manipulating the channel 

guide, providing more advanced 

parental controls, providing new user 

interfaces, and integrating with mobile 

devices. 

18. Two previous standardization 

approaches help to illustrate how this 

solution could unleash competition and 

innovation in equipment used with 

MVPD services, while allowing 

unfettered innovation in the services 

themselves: (i) The Carterfone and 

Computer Inquiry decisions required 

that the telephone network be 

terminated in a standardized RJ–11 

interface; and (ii) broadband services 

developed using divergent and rapidly 

developing network technologies 

terminated in an adapter that presents a 

standardized Ethernet interface. 

19. The RJ–11 interface requirement 

allowed the development of a vibrant 

retail market for answering machines, 

cordless phones, fax machines, 

modems, and other customer-premises 

equipment used with the telephone 

network. The requirement that the 

network terminate in a standardized 

interface with no carrier-supplied 

terminating device was implemented in 

the context of a single telephone 

network that used a single, stable 

delivery technology. It was a workable 

and successful solution in that context 

because our telephone network was 

based on a nationwide standard. 

20. Broadband services differ from 

telephone service in two key respects 

that have led to a significantly different 

approach. Multiple broadband operators 

provide services using divergent 

network technologies; and those 

technologies are not static but are 

rapidly developing. Numerous 

broadband delivery technologies exist— 

among them cable, digital subscriber 

line (‘‘DSL’’), satellite, wireless 

broadband, and optical fiber to the 

home. In each system, the operator 

provides a customer with an interface 

device such as a cable modem that 

performs all of the network-specific 

functions and connects via an Ethernet 

port to a multitude of competitively 

provided customer-premises devices 

including computers, printers, game 

consoles, digital media devices, wireless 

routers, and network storage devices. 

This approach has promoted an 

innovative and highly competitive retail 

market for devices used with broadband 

services. At the same time, because each 

operator terminates its service in an 

interface device that it can swap out as 

needed to accommodate innovations in 

delivery technologies, this approach has 

freed service providers to innovate in 

their networks without changing the 

Ethernet connection to which customers 

attach their devices. For example, a DSL 

provider can introduce a new, faster 

technology in its network and, if 

necessary, swap in a new DSL modem 

that incorporates the new technology, 

without changing the customer interface 

or requiring customers to replace 

devices they use with the service. This 

allows consumers to benefit from new 

and improved services without 

incurring the cost of replacing devices 

they have purchased at retail—replacing 

a single modem is more cost-effective 

than replacing each device that accesses 

broadband services. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21. One possible reason for the lack of 

success in the implementation of 

Section 629 to date is that it was 

modeled on the earlier telephone 

service approach, rather than the 

second, broadband approach. As NCTA 

has pointed out, the interface 

requirement as it applies to telephone 

service is not completely analogous. We 

agree, and we believe that the approach 

to assuring device compatibility with 

broadband services may provide a better 

model for MVPD device compatibility. 

MVPDs, like broadband providers, use 

divergent and rapidly developing 

delivery technologies, and our 

experience with the CableCARD regime 

indicates that a static implementation of 

section 629 that incorporates networkspecific interface functions into the 

navigation devices that consumers 

purchase in the retail market is unlikely 

to succeed. A more innovative, 

pragmatic, and long-term approach may 

be to separate those network interface 

functions from the consumer devices 

through the use of an adapter, as is the 

case with broadband services. 

22. The AllVid concept would follow 

the broadband approach. It would place 

the network-specific functions such as 

conditional access, provisioning, 

reception, and decoding of the signal in 

one small, inexpensive operatorprovided adapter, which could be either 

(i) a set-back device—which today could 

be as small as deck of cards—that 

attaches to the back of a consumer’s 

television set or set-top box, or (ii) a 

home gateway device that routes MVPD 

content throughout a subscriber’s home 

network. The adapter would act as a 

conduit to connect proprietary MVPD 

networks with navigation devices, TV 

sets, and a broad range of other 

equipment in the home. The AllVid 

adapter would communicate over open 

standards widely used in home 

communications protocols, as outlined 

below, enabling consumers to select and 

access content through navigation 

devices of their choosing purchased in 

a competitive retail market. MVPDs 

would, of course, be free to participate 

in the retail market by offering 

navigation devices for sale or lease to 

consumers, but those devices would be 

separate from the adapter and marketed 

separately. 

23. We believe that this model could 

unleash an expanding retail market for 

innovative and portable smart video 

devices and could also maintain 

MVPDs’ freedom to innovate in and 

protect their networks. As we envision 

the AllVid concept, it could lead to 

‘‘[c]ompetition in the manufacturing and 

distribution of consumer devices’’ as 

Congress envisioned, which ‘‘has always 

led to innovation, lower prices and 

higher quality,’’ because retail devices 

would be able to access the full array of 

services offered by all MVPDs and to 

integrate those services with other video 

sources—something that today’s plugand-play devices and tru2way devices 

cannot do. More specifically, we believe 

that this new AllVid model could: (i) 

Spur the development of a competitive 

retail market in navigation devices, thus 

providing subscribers with viable 

alternatives to leasing or buying a settop box from their MVPD, (ii) drive 

down retail prices for devices used to 

access MVPD services without 

increasing the prices of those services, 

(iii) encourage MVPDs to develop and 

introduce innovative services without 

being inhibited by the need to consult 

with navigation device manufacturers, 

and (iv) encourage device manufacturers 

to develop and introduce innovative 

smart video devices without being 

deterred by the need to consult with 

MVPDs. In the following section, we 

seek comment on a framework designed 

to achieve those goals; we also 

encourage commenters to propose 

alternative plans that could achieve the 

same goals. 

24. AllVid Standards. The AllVid 

adapter would perform only the 

functions necessary to support devices 

connected to the home network, and 

should connect to home network 

devices using a nationally supported 

standard interface that is common 

across MVPDs. We expect that an 

AllVid adapter could be inexpensive 

and physically small but, as set forth 

below, seek comment on those 

assumptions. We also envision that 

MVPDs would provide subscribers with 

the AllVid adapters (included in the 

price of service, or for a nominal lease 

fee, or with the option to purchase), and 

that AllVid adapters would likely not be 

portable across carriers. We seek 

comment on these expectations, as well 

as on the specific elements we believe 

would be necessary to bring the concept 

to fruition. For example, in a petition for 

rulemaking filed in the wake of NBP PN 

#27, Public Knowledge suggests that an 

AllVid-type device would require 

‘‘standards for (1) a physical connection, 

(2) a communication protocol, (3) 

authentication, (4) service discovery, 

and (5) content encoding.’’ We seek 

comment on Public Knowledge’s 

proposal, as well as the list of functions 

discussed in detail below that we 

believe would be necessary to 

implement the AllVid concept. We seek 

comment on any other functions for 

which standards would be necessary to 

develop an AllVid adapter. In this 

Section, we also seek comment on 

standards for the adapters, with the 

understanding that these standards may 

not encompass the entire universe 

necessary to develop and deploy AllVid 

adapters. 

25. AllVid Equipment. The AllVid 

equipment would be designed to 

operate specifically with one MVPD and 

offered through the MVPD’s preferred 

mechanism, whether leased or sold at 

retail, manufactured by one company or 

competitively. We foresee two possible 

physical configurations for the AllVid 

equipment. In the first configuration, 

the AllVid equipment would be a small 

‘‘set-back’’ device, capable of 

communicating with one navigation 

device or TV set and providing at least 

two simultaneous video streams to 

allow for picture-in-picture and to allow 

subscribers to watch a program on one 

channel while recording a program on 

another channel. In the second 

configuration, the AllVid equipment 

would act as a whole-home gateway, 

capable of simultaneously 

communicating with multiple 

navigation devices within the home, 

and providing at least six simultaneous 

video streams within the home (which 

would allow picture-in-picture in three 

different rooms), possibly through a 

modular system that could 

accommodate more streams as 

necessary. We seek input on each of 

these configurations and whether one of 

these configurations is more appropriate 

than the other, or if there are other 

superior configurations that should be 

considered. 

26. Physical connection. The 100– 

BASE–TX Ethernet could act as the 

physical layer technology used to 

connect the AllVid adapters with 

navigation devices. 100–BASE–TX 

Ethernet operates at speeds adequate to 

allow transfer of multiple high 

definition MPEG–2 signals (nominally 

15 Mbps each), and it has developed as 

a de facto connection for data 

transmission. Current and nextgeneration audio-visual equipment has 

and will continue to include Ethernet 

ports for connectivity for the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, adoption of Ethernet 

as the physical connection for AllVid 

adapters and navigation devices could 

enable compatibility with existing 

devices. In addition, the ubiquity of 

Ethernet could allow the AllVid adapter 

and navigation device manufacturers to 

defray costs to a large extent. We seek 

comment on these predictions. We seek 

comment on whether using Ethernet for 

the physical connection would be 

limiting if Internet video were not 

passed through the AllVid adapter. We 

also seek comment on any other 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27269 

physical connectors (for example, 

Multimedia over Coaxial Cable 

(‘‘MoCA’’)) that could serve as the bridge 

between AllVid adapters and retail 

navigation devices, or whether the 

Commission would need to mandate a 

physical layer technology at all. 

27. Communication Protocol. Internet 

Protocol (‘‘IP’’) could act as the 

communication protocol between the 

AllVid adapter and navigation devices. 

Like Ethernet, IP is the de facto standard 

protocol for data transmission, and 

current and next-generation audiovisual equipment is capable of handling 

IP communication. As a widely adopted 

protocol, IP is familiar to hardware and 

software developers, which would allow 

the retail market to flourish for smart 

video devices. We seek comment on 

whether IP would be the best choice for 

an AllVid communication protocol. We 

also seek comment on any other 

communication protocols that could 

serve as a standardized communication 

protocol between AllVid adapters and 

retail navigation devices. 

28. Encryption and Authentication. 

Both the MPAA and CableLabs have 

approved digital transmission content 

protection over Internet protocol 

(‘‘DTCP–IP’’) technology as an 

acceptable method of content 

encryption to prevent content theft, and 

it is the content protection scheme used 

in the Digital Living Network Alliance 

(‘‘DLNA’’) standard. For these reasons, 

we believe that the DTCP–IP standard 

would be a logical choice for content 

encryption and device authentication, 

and we seek comment on that 

assessment. We also seek comment on 

whether it would be practical to give 

each navigation device its own specific 

key. We believe that this could prevent 

a situation in which entire model 

classes of navigation devices would 

need to be deauthorized in the event 

that a key were compromised. Should 

the Commission select a party to 

administer the public key database in 

the same manner that the Commission 

handled the white spaces database, or 

would the relevant industry parties be 

able to agree on a third party to handle 

maintenance of a public key database? 

In the event that commenters are in 

favor of a third party maintaining the 

public key database, we seek proposals 

regarding parties that can handle that 

task. We seek comment on the ideas 

presented here with respect to 

encryption and authentication. We seek 

comment also on any other proposals 

that could serve the encryption and 

authentication functions in an AllVidconnected home network. 

29. Content Ordering and Billing. At 

least one party has indicated that 

MVPDs need the ability to verify that 

their subscribers have actually ordered 

pay-per-view and subscription content. 

What specific methods could the AllVid 

and navigation device use to facilitate 

ordering of pay-per-view and 

subscription content? We envision that 

the AllVid adapter would perform video 

rendering for the purpose of verifying a 

subscriber’s purchase of MVPD content 

such as Video on Demand (‘‘VOD’’) or a 

subscription service. We seek comment 

on these issues, including any other 

proposals that would allow MVPDs to 

verify that a subscriber wishes to 

purchase a specific MVPD service. 

30. Service Discovery. TiVo suggests 

that Universal Plug and Play (‘‘uPnP’’) 

protocols would be ‘‘an obvious 

technology choice for service 

discovery.’’ TiVo explains that the only 

protocols that the Commission would 

need to adopt for service discovery are 

‘‘gateway advertisement, which allows a 

gateway to announce its presence to 

consumer devices on the home network, 

and service browsing, in which a 

consumer device can browse and access 

the available services on the gateway.’’ 

We seek comment on TiVo’s proposal 

and invite commenters to propose any 

other protocols that would allow a 

navigation device to discover MVPD 

content on a home network with an 

AllVid adapter. For example, to achieve 

the efficiencies that come with 

switched-digital video, devices attached 

to a cable network need to inform the 

cable headend when a subscriber stops 

watching a program. What protocols 

would be necessary for the AllVid 

adapter to query whether the navigation 

device still requires access to the 

program stream? 

31. Content Encoding. A recent 

controversy over audio-visual codec 

support has led to heightened awareness 

about the issue of content encoding. 

Ideally, navigation devices should be 

designed to decode content that has 

been encoded in a number of specified 

formats and the AllVid adapter should 

be designed to transfer content in at 

least one of those formats. This would 

allow MVPDs to encode their content as 

they wish without the need for the 

AllVid adapter to transcode the content, 

which could make the AllVid adapter 

more expensive and less energy 

efficient. We seek comment on whether 

the Commission would need to specify 

the formats, and, if so, on the audiovisual codecs that the Commission 

should require navigation devices to 

handle. 

32. Intellectual Property. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

intellectual property issues related to 

proposed standards for the AllVid 

adapter. How long would it take for the 

necessary standards to be developed, 

and what costs would be involved? 

Would a requirement that all rights 

holders license their relevant 

intellectual property on reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory terms allow the 

market to flourish and provide adequate 

incentives for innovation? Does the 

Commission have the legal authority to 

mandate such terms? We seek comment 

on whether patent pools exist for any 

technologies that might be adopted. We 

seek comment on the licensing fees 

charged by patent holders for these 

technologies, and which parties hold 

those rights. We also seek comment on 

any other intellectual property issues 

relevant to the AllVid concept. 

33. Other Issues. The Commission 

also seeks comment on any additional 

standardization work that would be 

necessary to implement the AllVid 

regime. For example, we seek comment 

on how the AllVid adapter should 

resolve resource conflicts. If a 

subscriber’s home is equipped to handle 

six separate video streams and seven 

people in the home want to watch 

programming on seven different 

devices, which devices take 

precedence? Should the most recent 

device to make a request have the ability 

to override the conflict and choose 

which device to exclude? We seek 

comment on innovative ways to resolve 

device conflicts. 

34. Several commenters have 

highlighted issues regarding how a 

home network would handle emergency 

alert system (‘‘EAS’’) messages, closed 

captioning data, and MVPD parental 

controls. We note that there are existing 

standards to transmit closed captioning 

data and parental control data for 

broadcast television and unencrypted 

cable television. We seek comment on 

whether these standards can be adapted 

readily to perform these functions in the 

AllVid regime or whether new 

standards development is necessary. We 

note that development of a next 

generation EAS system is underway and 

seek comment on how EAS messages 

formatted in the Common Alerting 

Protocol could be carried in the AllVid 

system and received by devices. CEA 

and the Society of Cable 

Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) 

have both adopted standards for the 

carrying of EAS within the home 

network. We seek comment on what 

additional standards work is necessary 

to assure that retail devices receive and 

display EAS messages. 

35. We seek comment also on whether 

navigation devices in the AllVid system 

should include over-the-air ATSC 

tuners. The Commission’s rules require 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

unidirectional digital cable devices to 

include an ATSC tuner. In the Second 

Report and Order, the Commission 

concluded that ‘‘the public has come to 

understand that television receivers 

labeled or marketed as ‘cable ready’ 

universally include the capability of 

receiving over-the-air broadcast service.’’ 

Would consumers similarly expect this 

equipment to receive over-the-air 

broadcast service? Does the Commission 

have the authority under the AllChannel Receiver Act to impose such a 

requirement? 

36. We seek comment also on 

differences in delivery technology that 

might require specific MVPD providers 

to include functionality beyond what is 

necessary for conditional access, 

provisioning, reception, and decoding of 

the signal. For example, given the DBS 

industry’s inherently one-way 

distribution model, DISH Network and 

DIRECTV have indicated that home 

gateway devices for DBS would need to 

include hard drives for video caching to 

allow their subscribers to view VOD 

programming instantly and might need 

to include additional ‘‘intelligence.’’ We 

seek proposals on any network-specific 

functions that may need to be included 

in particular operators’ AllVid adapters. 

We also seek comment on how we could 

enable evolution of the AllVid system, 

with respect to both the components of 

the device and the output standards, in 

order to accommodate technological 

innovation over time. Finally, we seek 

comment on any other issues regarding 

the AllVid regime and specific 

proposals that would allow the 

Commission to resolve those issues. 

37. AllVid Support Requirements. The 

National Broadband Plan calls for 

Commission action to require MVPDs 

who offer digital navigation devices for 

lease to be prepared to offer AllVid 

equipment to their subscribers by 

December 31, 2012. We seek comment 

on that deadline, including measures 

that would be effective in enforcing it. 

To encourage MVPDs to adhere to this 

deadline, should the Commission take 

supplemental measures that would 

apply to MVPDs that are unable to 

deploy AllVid equipment to all new 

subscribers and to any subscribers who 

request AllVid equipment after this 

deadline (such as denying extensions of 

certain CableCARD waivers), or do the 

Commission’s existing enforcement 

mechanisms, which allow the 

imposition of forfeitures, provide 

sufficient incentives for MVPDs to meet 

such a deadline? How can the 

Commission prevent an overabundance 

of waiver requests similar to the ones 

filed in response to the integration ban, 

which some have argued have brought 

about policymaking by waiver? 

38. In concept, the AllVid approach 

would provide a successor technology 

to CableCARD. While the Commission is 

separately proposing steps to ameliorate 

shortcomings in the retail market for 

CableCARD devices in the interim, we 

anticipate that AllVid devices could 

over time replace CableCARD devices 

on retail shelves. Accordingly, we seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider eliminating its 

CableCARD rules, and if so, the 

appropriate date for such a change. We 

seek comment on consumer 

expectations regarding the lifespan of 

their devices, and whether the AllVid 

approach or any other approach could 

be implemented in a way that limits the 

number of CableCARD devices that 

become obsolete. 

39. Navigation Device Economics. 

Certain parties suggest that a retail 

market for navigation devices may be 

destined to fail because consumers are 

not interested in owning navigation 

devices. We seek comment on this 

assessment, including whether 

consumers prefer to lease at 

government-regulated ‘‘cost-plus’’ rates, 

whether consumers wish to avoid the 

risk of obsolescence of navigation 

devices, and whether consumers’ 

inability to ‘‘port’’ a retail navigation 

device when he or she changes MVPDs 

limits the attractiveness of the retail 

option. The cable industry has adopted 

the leasing model, charging customers a 

monthly fee that allows consumers to 

avoid a larger upfront cost entailed by 

a retail purchase. To evaluate the 

leasing versus retail equipment models, 

we seek data on consumer behavior 

when faced with a lease versus purchase 

decision, concerning navigation devices 

and analogous consumer electronic 

devices. We expect that MVPDs will 

want to continue to offer devices for 

lease or sale that provide greater 

functionality than an AllVid adapter. 

Should we require those devices to 

attach to the AllVid network, through an 

adapter? How would our decision on 

whether operator-provided navigation 

devices must commonly rely on the 

AllVid network affect the economics of 

the retail and leasing markets? 

40. What are consumer expectations 

with respect to ‘‘navigation devices?’’ 

Traditionally, the Commission and 

interested parties have considered the 

term navigation devices to include 

televisions, set-top boxes (including 

DVRs), and home theater computers. Do 

these devices comprise the universe of 

navigation devices, and if not, what 

other devices could perform navigation 

device functions? Are there specific 

minimum functions that a navigation 

device needs to perform? Should there 

be different classifications of navigation 

devices, and if so, should the 

Commission dictate the minimum 

functionality requirements of specific 

classes? What steps can the Commission 

take to increase economic and energy 

efficiencies that will allow consumers to 

connect fewer devices to their television 

display by consolidating functionality 

into one device? 

41. Would MVPDs be at an advantage 

in providing set-top boxes because they 

could provide home installation 

whereas consumers typically would 

have to install devices purchased in the 

retail market themselves? Do MVPDs 

earn a profit on home installations or, if 

not, would self-installations of retail 

devices by MVPD customers save 

MVPDs money? We seek comment also 

on the assertion that the cost of bringing 

navigation device functionality into 

television sets exceeds what consumers 

are willing to pay at retail. We seek data 

on consumer purchasing behavior 

regarding home entertainment 

equipment. To what extent are 

consumers willing to pay for additional 

functionalities in the equipment they 

purchase? Would the AllVid concept 

change the economics of consumer 

preferences? How much would an 

AllVid adapter cost? How much would 

it cost to add AllVid compatibility to a 

navigation device? Should the cost of an 

AllVid adapter and charges for 

installation by the MVPD be calculated 

according to the Commission’s rate 

regulation rules under section 76.923 in 

rate-regulated communities? Finally, we 

seek comment on whether economic or 

technological factors dictate that AllVid 

adapters would have to be provided by 

the MVPD, or whether AllVid adapters 

could be sold at retail, as NCTA has 

suggested in the past. 

42. Alternative Proposals. In response 

to NBP PN #27, several MVPDs 

expressed reservations about a ‘‘home 

gateway’’ technology mandate. These 

commenters suggest that the 

Commission should encourage marketdriven negotiations and standards 

development to achieve the goals of 

section 629. In this vein, we seek 

alternative proposals to the AllVid 

concept that could lead to the 

implementation of a competitive market 

solution for smart video devices by 

December 31, 2012. We also seek input 

on whether the movement of functions 

away from navigation devices and into 

the cloud or network might represent a 

viable alternative. How would the 

AllVid proposal affect the development 

of downloadable security? Are there 

specific incentives that the Commission 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27271 

could create that would expedite market 

negotiations and address the 

shortcomings of the current CableCARD 

regime discussed above? 

43. Other Issues. Content 

Presentation. Much of the innovation in 

television reception devices is related to 

easy-to-use graphical user interfaces; 

device manufacturers distinguish their 

products from one another by providing 

better user experiences. MVPDs argue, 

however, that a graphical user interface 

that is standard across its footprint 

makes consumer education and support 

easier; they also state that marketing 

agreements often require the MVPD to 

provide certain content within the 

electronic program guide. Providers also 

argue that multiple graphical user 

interfaces would create customer 

confusion with regard to whom 

subscribers should call with questions 

about problems associated with the user 

interface, service, and hardware 

compatibility. What steps should be 

taken to minimize any potential for 

confusion with regard to the appropriate 

provider of customer service for retail 

device product performance, warranty, 

and service-related issues? Given the 

inherent conflict between innovation 

and standardization, we seek comment 

on whether the Commission should 

adopt rules governing the way in which 

MVPD content is presented. What steps 

should be taken to protect agreements 

between MVPDs and content providers? 

Is there a way to balance MVPDs’ 

interests in improved customer service 

and adherence to their marketing 

contracts against the consumer benefits 

that result from electronics 

manufacturers differentiating their 

products from competitors’? We seek 

comment on the best way to resolve this 

issue. 

44. We also seek comment on 

intellectual property issues associated 

with electronic programming guides. 

The Consumer Electronics Association 

asserts that consumers already pay for 

programming guide data as part of their 

subscription fees, that the data is not 

subject to intellectual property 

protection, and that therefore MVPDs 

should provide programming guide data 

in a form that would allow competitive 

devices to display the data as they wish. 

MVPDs disagree, arguing that the 

intellectual property issues related to 

electronic programming guide 

presentation and data are more complex 

than the Consumer Electronics 

Association suggests. In addition to 

seeking comment on the intellectual 

property issues, we seek specific 

proposals for solutions or reasonable 

compromises that could address those 

issues and achieve the objectives of this 

proceeding. For example, would it be 

reasonable for MVPDs to charge 

separately for guide data, thereby saving 

subscribers who use third-party data 

from having to pay for the same data 

twice? 

45. Authority. The DC Circuit has 

found that section 629 gives the 

Commission broad discretion to adopt 

regulations to assure a competitive 

market for navigation devices. 

Throughout this proceeding, certain 

parties have argued that the 

Commission lacks the authority to 

require MVPDs to disaggregate their 

programming guides and allow retail 

devices to ‘‘repackage’’ their content. 

Section 629 directs the Commission to 

adopt regulations to assure the retail 

commercial availability of navigation 

devices, and the DC Circuit’s review has 

been ‘‘particularly deferential’’ in cases 

where the ‘‘FCC must make judgments 

about future market behavior with 

respect to a brand-new technology.’’ We 

seek further comment on our authority 

under section 629 of the Act. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

46. Ex Parte Rules. This is an exempt 

proceeding in which ex parte 

presentations are permitted (except 

during the Sunshine Agenda period) 

and need not be disclosed. 

47. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on or before 

July 13, 2010; reply comments are due 

on or before August 12, 2010. 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). 

48. 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. 

49. 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. 

50. 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. 

51. 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. 

52. 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. 

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

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

54. 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). 

55. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

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

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

56. 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. 

57. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Steven Broeckaert, 

Steven.Broeckaert@fcc.gov, 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. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11388 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS