80 FR 44106 - Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 142 (July 24, 2015)

The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. This document solicits data, information, and comment on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming for the Commission's Seventeenth Report (17th Report). The 17th Report will provide updated information and metrics regarding the video marketplace in 2014. Comments and data submitted in response to this document in conjunction with publicly available information and filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings will be used for the report to Congress.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44106-44111]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18215]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 15-158; DA 15-784]


Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for 
the Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on 
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video 
programming. This document solicits data, information, and comment on 
the status of competition in

[[Page 44107]]

the market for the delivery of video programming for the Commission's 
Seventeenth Report (17th Report). The 17th Report will provide updated 
information and metrics regarding the video marketplace in 2014. 
Comments and data submitted in response to this document in conjunction 
with publicly available information and filings submitted in relevant 
Commission proceedings will be used for the report to Congress.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments, on or before August 21, 
2015, and reply comments on or before September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Bring, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2164, or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
document, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market 
for Delivery of Video Programming. The complete text of the document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

    1. This Public Notice (Notice) solicits data, information, and 
comment on the state of competition in the delivery of video 
programming for the Commission's Seventeenth Report (17th Report). We 
seek to update the information and metrics provided in the Sixteenth 
Report (16th Report) and report on the state of competition in the 
video marketplace in 2014.
    2. Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) amended the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (Act or Communications Act) and directed the 
Commission to establish regulations for the purpose of increasing 
competition and diversity in multichannel video programming 
distribution, increasing the availability of satellite delivered 
programming, and spurring the development of communications 
technologies. To measure progress toward these goals, Congress required 
the Commission to report annually on ``the status of competition in the 
market for the delivery of video programming.''
    3. In 1992, when Congress first required the Commission to report 
on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video 
programming, most consumers had the limited choice of receiving over-
the-air broadcast television stations or subscribing to the video 
services their local cable company offered. From the consumer 
perspective, head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming 
distribution (MVPD) began in 1994 with the introduction of direct 
broadcast satellite (DBS) video services. In 2005 an additional 
competitive alternative for MVPD services became available to consumers 
when telephone companies began offering video services in some areas 
cable operators already served. More recently, most consumers have 
additional alternatives for the delivery of video programming from 
online video distributors' (OVDs) offerings of video content over the 
Internet.

Scope of the Report

    4. In the 17th Report, we expect to continue using the analytical 
framework used in the 16th Report. Under this framework, we categorize 
entities that deliver video programming in one of three groups--MVPDs, 
broadcast television stations, or OVDs. We also plan to examine 
consumer premises equipment that enables consumers to view programming 
on their television sets and on other residential or mobile devices 
(e.g., smartphones and tablets). In addition, we plan to discuss the 
deployment of new technologies and services, as well as innovation and 
investment in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.

Analytic Framework

    5. We categorize entities that deliver video programming into one 
of three groups: MVPDs, broadcast television stations, or OVDs. Within 
each of the three groups, we describe the group's:
     Providers, which may include the number, size, and 
footprint of the entities in the group, horizontal and/or vertical 
concentration, regulatory and market conditions affecting entry, and 
any recent entry or exit from the group;
     Business models and competitive strategies, which may 
include the technologies entities employ to deliver programing, pricing 
plans, and product and service differences; and
     Selected Operating and Financial Statistics, which may 
include statistics related to the number of subscribers or viewers, 
revenue, and other financial indicators.
    6. In the 17th Report, we plan to report on a calendar year-end 
basis. We request data as of year-end 2014 (i.e., December 31, 2014).

I. Providers of Delivered Video Programming

Multichannel Video Programming Distributors

1. MVPD Providers
    7. The vast majority of MVPD subscribers rely on cable, DBS, or 
telephone MVPDs to provide their video services and this report will 
focus on these entities. For cable, DBS, and telephone MVPDs, we seek 
data on the number of providers, the number of homes passed, the number 
of subscribers for delivered video programming, the number of linear 
channels and amount of non-linear programming offered, and the ability 
of subscribers to watch programming on multiple devices both inside and 
outside the home. Are there differences in the number and types of 
MVPDs between rural and urban areas?
    8. We request updated information on the number of markets where 
DBS operators provide local-into-local broadcast service. With respect 
to non-contiguous states and U.S. territories, do DBS MVPDs offer the 
same video packages at the same prices as they offer in the 48 
contiguous states? Do subscribers need different or additional 
equipment to receive DBS MVPD services?
    9. Horizontal Concentration. In the 16th Report, we estimated the 
number of housing units nationwide with access to two, three, and four 
or more MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on this measure 
of horizontal concentration and on any other measure proposed by 
commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between 
the number of MVPDs available to a consumer and competition.
    10. Vertical Integration. In the 16th Report, we identified the 
national video programming networks, regional video programming 
networks, and regional sports networks affiliated with one or more 
MVPDs. We seek data, information, and comment on these categories of 
vertical integration and on any other categories proposed by 
commenters. We also invite analysis regarding the relationship between 
vertical integration and competition.
    11. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. 
Regulations and market conditions affect competition in the marketplace 
for the delivery of video programming. We seek data, information, and 
comment on the impact of the Communications Act and Commission rules on 
competition, innovation and investment. We recognize that the 
regulations applicable to cable operators may differ from the

[[Page 44108]]

regulations applicable to DBS systems and telephone MVPDs. How do 
regulatory disparities affect competition? What specific actions could 
the Commission take to facilitate competition in the marketplace for 
the delivery of video programming?
    12. We seek comment on the impact of marketplace conditions on MVPD 
competition. We also request data, information, and comment regarding 
the entry and exit of MVPDs in 2014. We are specifically interested in 
entry that increases the number of MVPDs available to consumers and 
exit that reduces the number of MVPDs available to consumers.
2. MVPD Business Models and Competitive Strategies
    13. MVPDs may choose from a variety of business models and 
competitive strategies to attract and retain subscribers and viewers. 
We seek descriptions of MVPD business models and competitive strategies 
in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming. How do MVPDs 
attract new subscribers and retain existing subscribers? How do MVPDs 
distinguish their video services from their closest competitors? Do 
bundles of video, Internet, and voice services help attract and retain 
video subscribers? Do cable and telephone MVPDs offering bundles over 
wireline facilities with two-way capability have competitive advantages 
over DBS MVPDs offering video using satellites with one-way capability 
and Internet and phone services using cooperative arrangements with 
other entities? Is there a trend to unbundle or offer smaller, less 
expensive video packages? Some MVPDs are now offering skinny bundles 
that include Internet and video packages with a relatively small number 
of video channels. Are skinny bundles attracting cord cutters 
(households that have cancelled MVPD service) and cord nevers 
(households that have never had MVPD service) or helping to retain 
existing subscribers that may have been thinking about cutting the 
cord?
    14. Do some MVPDs, such as those of a certain size, have a 
competitive advantage in the marketplace for the delivery of video 
programming? Do some MVPDs pay lower prices for video programming? Do 
the competitive strategies of certain MVPDs include arrangements with 
content providers that make it more difficult for competitors to 
acquire programming on reasonable terms? To the extent that any of 
these answers is yes, please describe the characteristics of such 
MVPDs.
    15. Have vertically integrated MVPDs (i.e., MVPDs with ownership 
interest in video programming) made it more difficult for competitors 
to acquire programming by restricting access or raising prices? What is 
the impact of rising programming prices and rising retransmission 
consent fees on MVPD business models and competitive strategies?
    16. To enhance their competitive position in the marketplace for 
the delivery of video programming, MVPDs have deployed TV Everywhere, 
which allows MVPD subscribers to access both linear and video-on-demand 
(VOD) programs on a variety of in-home and mobile Internet-connected 
devices. In addition to TV Everywhere, which requires an MVPD 
subscription, some MVPDs are offering online video packages, which do 
not require an MVPD subscription, to attract cord cutters and cord 
nevers. We request comment on the competitive strategies of MVPDs 
launching online video services separate from their MVPD services.
    17. Some MVPDs have added various video-related fees to monthly 
billing statements. Such fees include, for instance, a broadcast fee to 
partially recoup retransmission consent fees charged by local broadcast 
stations and a sports fee to defray the cost of sports programming. We 
seek comment on the competitive strategy associated with adding video-
related fees as opposed to raising monthly subscription prices. Do such 
fees enable MVPDs to better attract new subscribers and retain existing 
subscribers?
    18. We request information on MVPDs' deployment of new 
technologies, including transitioning to all-digital distribution, 
adding Internet Protocol (IP)-delivered video programming, deploying 
more efficient video encoding technologies (e.g., MPEG-4 and High 
Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)), developing and testing enhanced 
transmission technologies (e.g., DOCSIS 3.1) and expanding 3-D and 4K 
services.
    19. We are interested in the extent of substitution between MVPD 
services, OVD services, and over-the-air broadcast television. We 
realize that substitution represents only part of the competitive 
interaction between MVPDs, broadcasters, and OVDs. Consumers may also 
use OVDs and broadcast stations to supplement (i.e., add to) and 
complement (i.e., combine with) their MVPD services. Our primary focus, 
however, is substitution. What video services do MVPDs offer that OVDs 
and broadcast stations do not? To what extent do the prices of MVPD 
services lead households to substitute OVD services and over-the-air 
broadcast services for MVPD services? When marketing their video 
services, have MVPDs encouraged households to switch away from OVD 
services and over-the-air broadcast services and rely more on MVPD 
services? What actions have MVPDs taken in response to actual or 
potential competition from OVDs and broadcast stations?
3. Selected MVPD Operating and Financial Statistics
    20. In the 16th Report, we provided the following MVPD operating 
and financial statistics: Video packages and pricing, number of video 
subscribers and penetration rates, and revenue. We expect to report 
comparable statistics in the 17th Report. We seek data on the number of 
housing units passed nationally, the number of subscribers, and the 
penetration rates. We seek data on MVPD subscriber losses and the 
factors leading to those losses, especially competition from OVDs. We 
request data on MVPD revenue. We recognize that cable and telephone 
MVPDs also provide Internet and phone services using their own 
facilities. Our focus, however, is the market for the delivery of video 
programming, and commenters submitting data for operating and financial 
statistics should separate video from non-video services.

Broadcast Television Stations

4. Broadcast Television Station Providers
    21. Providers of broadcast television services include both 
individual and group-owned stations that hold licenses to broadcast 
video programming to consumers. Broadcast stations deliver video 
programming over the air to consumers. How many households view 
broadcast programming over-the-air exclusively, and how many households 
receive such programming over the air on some televisions not connected 
to an MVPD service? How many households use a combination of over-the-
air stations and OVD services?
    22. Horizontal Concentration. Commission rules limit the number of 
broadcast television stations an entity can own in a DMA, depending on 
the number of independently owned stations in the market. Does group 
ownership strengthen the competitive position of broadcast stations in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming, either through 
increased advertising revenue or lower prices for video programming? 
Does it affect the prices, terms or conditions of carriage agreements 
with MVPDs? What is the impact of group ownership on the

[[Page 44109]]

competitive position of independently-owned stations?
    23. Vertical Integration. Does vertical integration strengthen a 
broadcast station's ability to negotiate carriage rights with MVPDs? 
Are vertically integrated broadcast stations stronger competitors in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming?
    24. Regulatory and Market Conditions Affecting Competition. The 
Commission's spectrum allocation and licensing policies affect 
broadcast television by limiting the number of stations located in a 
given geographic area. Commission rules limit the number of broadcast 
television stations an entity can own in a DMA as well as limit the 
aggregate national audience reach of commonly owned broadcast 
television stations. The Commission's territorial exclusivity rule 
restricts the geographic area in which a television broadcast station 
may obtain exclusive rights to video programming. We seek data, 
information, and comment on the impact of these regulations, the impact 
of the upcoming incentive auction, and the potential impact of our 
recent Declaratory Ruling regarding foreign broadcast investment on 
competition in the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.
5. Broadcast Television Station Business Models and Competitive 
Strategies
    25. What competitive strategies are broadcast television stations 
using to distinguish themselves from other broadcast television 
stations? What competitive strategies are broadcast stations using to 
strengthen their competitive position in the market for the delivery of 
video programming? We seek data, information, and comment on the use of 
multicast streams, the amount of HD programming, mobile TV, and 
broadcast station Web sites. We seek comment regarding the ability of 
broadcast stations to secure MVPD carriage of their multicast signals 
and the impact of such carriage on the financial viability of their 
multicast operations. What effect does the ability to offer HD or ultra 
HD programming have on a broadcast station's ability to compete in the 
marketplace for the delivery of video programming? What progress has 
been made regarding mobile TV? In what ways are broadcasters using 
their stations' Web sites to strengthen their competitive position in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming?
    26. To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as 
providing unique services, such as local news, sports, weather and 
emergency alerts, to increase viewership? Do joint sales agreements 
(JSAs), local marketing agreements (LMAs), and shared services 
agreements (SSAs) affect the provision of local news offered by 
broadcast stations, and if so, how? Has online delivery contributed to 
increased investment in broadcast station local news and information 
programming?
    27. For many years, broadcast television networks used their local 
broadcast television-affiliated stations as their primary distributor 
of programming. Broadcast network programming, however, has become 
increasingly available from OVDs. In addition, broadcast networks are 
increasingly providing OVD services themselves to strengthen their 
competitive position in the market for delivery of video programming. 
Are other broadcast networks planning to offer subscription VOD and 
live programming, either as standalone OVD services or through joint 
ventures like Hulu and Hulu Plus? How successful are their subscription 
offerings, relative to their free offerings? When networks offer their 
programming as OVDs, how does this impact the financial well-being of 
affiliated stations that previously offered such programming to the 
public on an exclusive basis? Have local broadcast stations adapted 
their business models and competitive strategies in ways that indicate 
that they view MVPDs and OVDs as competitors? We seek comment generally 
on the effect of the broadcast networks' increasing provision of OVD 
service. In particular, what effect is this having on the relationship 
between broadcast networks and their affiliates? What competitive 
strategies are broadcast stations using to remain important to 
broadcast networks for program distribution?
    28. We are interested in the extent of substitution between over-
the-air services and MVPDs and between over-the-air services and OVDs. 
Do broadcast stations compare their video services to MVPD and OVD 
services? To what extent do broadcast stations market themselves as 
substitutes for MVPD and OVD services? What specific marketing 
activities have broadcast stations used, if any, to encourage 
households to switch away from MVPDs and OVDs and rely more on over-
the-air services?
6. Selected Broadcast Television Station Operating and Financial 
Statistics
    29. In the 16th Report, we provided the following broadcast 
television station operating and financial statistics: Audiences; 
revenue from advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent 
fees, ancillary services, and online services; cash flow estimates and 
pre-tax profits; and capital expenditures. We seek data on the 
viewership of broadcast television stations from over-the-air 
reception, MVPD carriage, online viewing, and mobile TV. Has 
multicasting, online viewing, and/or mobile TV increased broadcast 
station viewership in the marketplace for the delivery of video 
programming? We seek data on broadcast television station revenues from 
advertising, network compensation, retransmission consent fees, 
ancillary services, and subscription fees from OVD offerings. We seek 
information and comment on the impact, if any, of JSAs, LMAs and SSAs 
on retransmission consent negotiations and fees.

Online Video Distributors

7. OVD Providers
    30. In the video marketplace, Internet-delivered video services are 
expanding and evolving quickly and significantly. Linear programming is 
becoming increasingly available. And new OVD service offerings are 
provided by both new entrants to the marketplace and existing industry 
participants developing new products. The Commission has in the past 
defined an ``OVD'' as any entity that offers video content by means of 
the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP)-based transmission path 
provided by a person or entity other than the OVD. Pursuant to the 
definition, an OVD has not included an MVPD inside its MVPD footprint 
or an MVPD to the extent it is offering online video content as a 
component of an MVPD subscription to customers whose homes are inside 
its MVPD footprint. As these developments continue apace, the 
Commission may wish to consider modifying the definition of ``OVD'' it 
has used in previous Reports to better reflect the evolving 
marketplace. For instance, some traditional MVPDs are offering or 
considering offering Internet-delivered services that would not be 
restricted to subscribers to their traditional MVPD services. Moreover, 
the Commission has opened a proceeding to consider whether an Internet-
delivered service that offers linear programming, as DISH's Sling TV, 
for example, does, should be considered to be an MVPD as that term is 
defined in the Communications Act. We will want to consider any revised 
definition of OVD in coordination with any action the Commission may 
take in the MVPD proceeding. In the meantime, for purposes of the 17th 
Report we seek data on services that fall within our previous 
definition of OVD and on other

[[Page 44110]]

Internet-delivered services that are available or are becoming 
available that should be considered in an assessment of the state of 
competition in this segment of the marketplace.
    31. In the 16th Report, we categorized and discussed OVD providers 
in terms of the types of services offered (e.g., subscription, 
advertising-supported, rental, electronic sell-through, and sports). We 
expect to follow a similar approach in the 17th Report. Because OVDs 
are relatively new entities in the video marketplace, data regarding 
this category tends to be more dispersed and less standardized and 
reliable, relative to more long-established data for the MVPD and 
broadcast station categories. We seek comment on the most comprehensive 
and most reliable data sources for OVDs, individually and as a group.
    32. Horizontal Concentration. Because OVDs may be accessed wherever 
consumers can connect to high-speed Internet, we assume that OVDs 
compete with one another in a national marketplace. In the 16th Report, 
we noted the difficulty of measuring OVD market shares as many OVDs are 
subsidiaries or divisions of companies that do not report data 
separately for OVD services. We seek comment on an appropriate measure 
of OVD horizontal concentration.
    33. Vertical Integration. Some OVDs are vertically integrated with 
MVPDs, video content creators and aggregators, and manufacturers of 
devices used for viewing video programming. In addition, some OVDs 
provide video storage services and operate content delivery networks 
(CDNs). Do these vertical relationships strengthen the competitive 
positions of OVDs? We seek data, information, and comment regarding OVD 
vertical integration and its impact on competition in the marketplace 
for the delivery of video programming.
    34. Regulatory and Marketplace Conditions Affecting Competition. We 
request data, information, and comment on regulatory and marketplace 
conditions that affect OVDs' ability to compete for the delivery of 
video programming. OVD regulations include possible reclassification of 
some OVDs as MVPDs, Open Internet rules, and IP closed captioning 
requirements for video programming. OVDs depend on ISPs to deliver 
video content to consumers. To what extent does this dependence impact 
the ability of OVDs to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming? Are ISPs providing consumers with sufficient 
Internet speeds to view OVD programming whenever, and wherever, and on 
whatever devices they choose? Do ISPs that are also MVPDs have 
incentives to disadvantage OVDs? What specific actions are OVDs and 
ISPs taking individually or cooperatively to improve video streaming 
quality and facilitate the viewing of video online? Do OVDs encounter 
unique issues (relative to MVPDs and broadcast stations) when acquiring 
content rights?
8. OVD Business Models and Competitive Strategies
    35. We seek information on the business models and competitive 
strategies OVDs use to compete in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming. How do OVDs differentiate their services and attract 
consumers? What are the key differences in terms of the video service 
offerings, picture quality, original programming, distinctive content, 
linear programming, video streaming quality, enabling viewing on 
multiple devices, pricing, and revenue sources?
    36. We are interested in the extent of substitution between OVDs 
and MVPDs and between OVDs and over-the-air broadcast services. We seek 
data, information, and comment on the extent of substitution between 
OVDs and MVPDs and between OVDs and over-the-air broadcast services. Do 
OVDs compare their video services to MVPD and over-the-air services? To 
what extent do OVDs market themselves as substitutes for MVPD and over-
the-air services? What specific marketing activities have OVDs used, if 
any, to encourage households to rely more on the video services of OVDs 
than on MVPDs and over-the-air broadcast stations? Substitution 
involves both the video content offered and relative prices. What 
effects have the prices charged by OVDs had on substitution?
9. Selected OVD Operating and Financial Statistics
    37. In the 16th Report, we provided the following OVD operating and 
financial statistics: Usage, viewership, subscribership, revenue, 
investment, and profitability. In the 17th Report, we again plan to 
report on these operating and financial statistics. We seek information 
concerning the amount and type of video programming OVDs offer (e.g., 
television programs, movies, and sports). We seek data on the number of 
consumers who view OVD programming, the number of programs they view, 
and the amount of time they spend viewing. We seek data on OVD revenue 
from subscriptions, advertising, and fees for video rentals and sales.

II. Consumer Premises Equipment

    38. Consumer premises equipment (CPE) refers to devices that enable 
consumers to watch video content delivered by MVPDs, broadcast 
stations, and OVDs. We seek comment on the major developments in CPE 
devices that affect competition in the marketplace for the delivery of 
video programming. What new CPE products have been introduced? What are 
the major technological developments in CPE?
    39. While consumers have traditionally leased the set-top boxes 
necessary for viewing MVPD programming, they purchase most other CPE 
devices. We seek comment on the competitive strategies associated with 
leasing set-top boxes. We also seek comment on the effects of set top 
box leasing on innovation and investment in CPE devices. To what extent 
do the set-top boxes provided by MVPDs limit the ability to access 
programming offered by OVDs? What are the consumer benefits and costs 
of leased set-top boxes? What alternatives do MVPD subscribers have to 
leasing a set-top box? We seek information and comment on the 
availability of retail alternatives to leased set-top boxes. Are 
consumers able to receive the full suite of an MVPD's video services 
via these retail alternatives?

III. Consumer Behavior

    40. We request data on the number or percentage of households that 
have HD televisions, ultra HD televisions, Internet-connected 
televisions, DVRs, and mobile video devices (e.g., laptops, tablets, 
and smartphones). We also seek data on trends that compare consumer 
viewing of linear video programming with time-shifted programming. To 
what extent are consumers dropping or limiting MVPD services in favor 
of OVDs or a combination of OVDs and over-the-air television? Do some 
consumers view OVD services separately, or in conjunction with over-
the-air broadcast television services as a potential substitute for 
some or all MVPD services? Do consumers who do not subscribe to MVPD 
services share common characteristics? We seek comment on the 
relationship between consumer behavior (e.g., binge viewing, time 
shifting, viewing outside the home, viewing on multiple devices) and 
the business models and competitive strategies of entities in the 
marketplace for the delivery of video programming.
    41. MVPD, OVDs, and broadcast stations use television, newspapers, 
mailings, and Web sites to reach potential consumers and provide 
information about video services and

[[Page 44111]]

prices. Do consumers have sufficient information to easily compare 
video services and price offerings? What do consumers value most when 
choosing between and among MVPDs, broadcast stations, and OVDs? What 
reasons do consumers give for switching from MVPD services to reliance 
on OVDs and/or over-the-air services (e.g., price, programming)?

IV. Additional Issues

    42. With this Notice, we seek data, information, and comment on a 
wide range of issues in order to report on the status of competition in 
the market for the delivery of video programming. To make the 17th 
Report as useful as possible, are there other issues, additional 
information, or data we should include in the report? In the interest 
of streamlining the report, we request comment on issues, information, 
and data that could be modified or eliminated without impairing the 
value of the 17th Report to Congress on the status of competition in 
the marketplace for the delivery of video programming.

Procedural Matters

    43. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure 
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.204(b)(1).
    44. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 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 the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All 
filings concerning matters referenced in this document should refer to 
MB Docket No. 12-203.
    45. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    46. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    47. For further information about this Notice, please contact Dan 
Bring at (202) 418-2164, [email protected], or Marcia Glauberman at 
(202) 418-7046, [email protected].

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2015-18215 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P