Source: http://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-seeks-comment-interpretation-mvpd-and-channel
Timestamp: 2015-04-01 10:01:46
Document Index: 311027023

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 548', '§ 76', '§ 325', '§ 76', '§ 536', '§ 76', '§ 549', '§ 76', '§ 325', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 79', '§ 613', '§ 79', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 522', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 522', '§ 73', '§ 73', '§ 76', '§ 522']

Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of "MVPD" and "Channel | FCC.gov
Home / Business & Legal / Commission Documents / Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of "MVPD" and "ChannelCommission Document	Print
Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of "MVPD" and "Channel
DA 12-507
MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS
“MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTOR” AND “CHANNEL” AS RAISED IN PENDING PROGRAM ACCESS COMPLAINT PROCEEDING
MB Docket No. 12-83
Comments Due: April 30, 2012Reply Comments Due: May 30, 2012
A program access complaint is pending before the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) that raises the threshold legal issue of how to interpret the term “multichannel video programming distributor” (“MVPD”), as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act” or the “Act”). The complaint also raises the issue of how to interpret the term “channel” as used in the definition of the term “MVPD.” The interpretation of these terms has legal and policy implications that extend beyond the parties to this complaint. We issue this Public Notice to ensure that before deciding the proper interpretation of the terms, we will have the benefit of broad public input and carefully consider all legal and policy implications.1 We seek public comment on the most appropriate interpretations of these terms, including two possible interpretations raised in the record of the complaint proceeding, and the policy ramifications of each interpretation: (i) interpreting “channel” as used in the definition of the term “MVPD” to include the provision of a transmission path, thus treating as MVPDs only those entities that make available for purchase multiple streams of “video programming” as well asthe transmission path; or (ii) interpreting “channel” as used in the definition of the term “MVPD” to provide that any entity that makes multiple “video programming networks” available for purchase is considered an “MVPD” without regard to whether it makes available a transmission path for purchase. We also seek comment on any alternative interpretations of the terms “channel” and “MVPD” as well as the policy ramifications of such alternative interpretations. II.
An entity that is defined as an MVPD in the Act is subject to both benefits and legal obligations under the Act and the Commission’s Rules. The regulatory benefits of MVPD status include the right to seek relief under the program access rules2 and the retransmission consent rules.3 Among the 1 This action is taken pursuant to Section 4(j) of the Act and Sections 1.1, 1.1200(a), and 76.7(e) of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 U.S.C. § 4(j); 47 C.F.R §§ 1.1, 1.1200(a), 76.7(e).
2 See 47 U.S.C. § 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1000-1004. Among other things, these rules require cable-affiliated programmers to make their programming available to MVPDs on nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
regulatory obligations of MVPDs are statutory and regulatory requirements relating to program carriage,4the competitive availability of navigation devices (including the integration ban),5 the requirement to negotiate in good faith with broadcasters for retransmission consent,6 Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) requirements,7 closed captioning and emergency information requirements,8 various technical requirements (such as signal leakage restrictions),9 and cable inside wiring requirements.10
The Act defines an MVPD as: [A] person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.11 The Act also defines the terms “channel” and “video programming.” A “channel” is defined as “a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and which is capable of delivering a television channel (as television channel is defined by the Commission by regulation).”12 The Commission’s regulations define a “television channel” as “a band of frequencies 6 MHz wide in the television broadcast band and designated either by number or by the extreme lower and upper frequencies.”13 The Commission’s regulations also define a “cable television channel” as a “signaling path provided by a cable television system.”14 The Act defines “video programming” as “programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station.”15
(Continued from previous page) 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 325(b)(3)(C)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 76.65(b). Among other things, these rules require broadcasters to negotiate with MVPDs in good faith.
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 536; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1300-1302.5 See 47 U.S.C. § 549; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1200-1210.6 See 47 U.S.C. § 325(b)(3)(C)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 76.65(b).7 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.71-79, 76.1792, 76.1802.8 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1-2. A non-MVPD that makes video programming available directly to the end user through a distribution method that uses Internet protocol (“IP”) would be subject to the Commission’s new IP closed captioning requirements. See Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787 (2012); see also 47 U.S.C. § 613; 47 C.F.R. § 79.4.
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.610; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.605(a)(12), 76.611, 76.614, 76.1803; 1.1705(a)(1) (FCC Form 320 – Basic Signal Leakage Performance Report).
10 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.800-806.11 47 U.S.C. § 522(13) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000(e); 47 C.F.R. § 76.64(d); 47 C.F.R. § 76.71(a); 47 C.F.R. § 76.1200(b); 47 C.F.R. § 76.1300(d). We note that the Commission previously characterized this definition as “broad in its coverage” and “unclear” in its scope. See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 8055, 8065, ¶ 42 (1992); Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 194, 195, ¶ 6 n.13 (1992). 12 47 U.S.C. § 522(4). 13 47 C.F.R. § 73.681; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.603, 73.606, 73.682(a)(1). 14 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(r)-(u).15 47 U.S.C. § 522(20). 2
Sky Angel’s Pending Complaint. In March 2010, Sky Angel U.S., LLC (“Sky Angel”) filed a program access complaint against Discovery Communications, LLC and its affiliate, Animal Planet, L.L.C. (collectively, “Discovery”), as well as a petition for a standstill of its affiliation agreement with Discovery.16 As described in the complaint, Sky Angel provides a subscription-based service of approximately eighty channels of video and audio programming.17 Sky Angel offers programming such as the MLB Network, NFL Network, Hallmark Channel, and Weather Channel.18 According to Sky Angel, its subscribers receive programming through a set-top box that has a broadband Internet input and video outputs that connect directly to a television set.19 Sky Angel explains that its service is available to anyone nationwide with a wired or wireless broadband Internet connection.20 After receiving notice that Discovery intended to terminate its affiliation agreement with Sky Angel covering certain Discovery networks, Sky Angel filed a program access complaint and petition for a standstill with the Commission. 5.
As discussed in greater detail below, the Bureau denied the petition on the basis that Sky Angel failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it is likely to succeed in showing on the merits that it is an “MVPD” entitled to seek relief under the program access rules.21 The Bureau determined that the term “channel” as used in the definition of MVPD appears to include a transmission path as a necessary element.22 Based on the limited record at the time, the Bureau was unable to find that Sky Angel provides its subscribers with a transmission path.23 The Bureau was careful to note, however, that the decision “should not be read to state or imply that the Comm