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)

Page Range		44106-44111
FR Document		2015-18215
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 Issue 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)
[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 danny.bring@fcc.gov.

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 
fcc504@fcc.gov 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, danny.bring@fcc.gov, or Marcia Glauberman at 
(202) 418-7046, marcia.glauberman@fcc.gov.

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2015-18215 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
44106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices

further reduce the information Needs and Uses: Part 11 contains the approval by the Office of
collection burden on small business rules and regulations addressing the Management and Budget of the
concerns with fewer than 25 employees. nation’s Emergency Alert System (EAS). modified information collection
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a The EAS provides the President with requirements under the Paperwork
collection of information unless it the capability to provide immediate Reduction Act of 1995 and an effective
displays a currently valid control communications and information to the date of the rule amendment, or within
number. No person shall be subject to general public at the national, state and sixty days of the launch of the ETRS,
any penalty for failing to comply with local area level during periods of whichever is later, and shall renew this
a collection of information subject to the national emergency. The EAS also identifying information on a yearly basis
PRA that does not display a valid Office provides state and local governments or as required by any revision of the
of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Weather Service with EAS Participant’s State EAS Plan filed
control number. the capability to provide immediate pursuant to section 11.21 of this part,
DATES: Written PRA comments should communications and information to the and consistent with the requirements of
be submitted on or before September 22, general public concerning emergency paragraph 11.61(a)(3)(iv) of this part,
2015. If you anticipate that you will be situations posing a threat to life and section 11.61(a)(3)(iv) requires Test
submitting comments, but find it property. results as required to be logged by all
difficult to do so within the period of The FCC is now submitting this EAS Participants into the EAS Test
time allowed by this notice, you should information collection as a revision to Reporting System (ETRS) as determined
advise the contact listed below as soon the Office of Management and Budget by the Commission’s Public Safety and
as possible. (OMB) to establish a mandatory Homeland Security Bureau, subject to
Electronic Test Reporting System the following requirements. EAS
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to
(ETRS) that EAS Participants must Participants shall provide the
Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email PRA@ utilize to file identifying and test result
fcc.gov and to Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. identifying information required by the
data as part of their participation in the ETRS initially no later than sixty days
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For second nationwide EAS test. Although after the publication in the Federal
additional information about the the ETRS adopted in this Sixth Report Register of a notice announcing the
information collection, contact Nicole and Order in EB Docket No. 04–296, approval by the Office of Management
Ongele at (202) 418–2991. FCC 15–60, largely resembles the and Budget of the modified information
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: version used during the first nationwide collection requirements under the
OMB Control Number: 3060–0207. EAS test, it also contains certain Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
Title: Part 11—Emergency Alert improvements, such as support for pre- an effective date of the rule amendment,
System (EAS), Sixth Report and Order, population of form data, and integration or within sixty days of the launch of the
FCC 12–7. of form data into an EAS ‘‘Mapbook.’’ ETRS, whichever is later, and shall
Form Number: N/A. ETRS will continue to collect such renew this identifying information on a
Type of Review: Revision of a identifying information as station call yearly basis or as required by any
currently approved collection. letters, license identification number,
Respondents: Business or other for- revision of the EAS Participant’s State
geographic coordinates, EAS EAS Plan filed pursuant to section 11.21
profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, designation (LP, NP, etc.), EAS
and state, local or tribal government. of this part. EAS Participants must also
monitoring assignment, and emergency file ‘‘Day of test’’ data in the ETRS
Number of Respondents: 63,080 contact information. EAS Participants
respondents; 3,569,028 responses. within 24 hours of any nationwide test
will submit this identifying data prior to
Estimated Time per Response: 43 or as otherwise required by the Public
the test date. On the day of the test, EAS
hours. Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
Participants will input test results into
Frequency of Response: On occasion ETRS (e.g., whether the test message
reporting requirement and was received and processed Federal Communications Commission.
recordkeeping requirement. successfully). They will input the Marlene H. Dortch,
Obligation to Respond: Obligatory for remaining data called for by our Secretary.
all entities required to participate in reporting rules (e.g., more detailed test [FR Doc. 2015–18091 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
EAS. results) within 45 day of the test. The BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Total Annual Burden: 82,008 hours. Commission believes that structuring
Total Annual Cost: No cost. ETRS in this fashion will allow EAS
Privacy Impact Assessment: No Participants to timely provide the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
impact. Commission with test data in a COMMISSION
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: minimally burdensome fashion. As the
Filings will be given the presumption of [MB Docket No. 15–158; DA 15–784]
subsequent analysis indicates, this
confidentiality. The Commission will revised collection will cause no change Annual Assessment of the Status of
allow test data and reports containing in the burden estimates or reporting and Competition in the Market for the
individual test data to be shared on a record keeping requirements that the Delivery of Video Programming
confidential basis with other Federal Commission submitted (and which
agencies and state governmental OMB subsequently approved) for the AGENCY: Federal Communications
emergency management agencies that Commission.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2011 system. The revised information
have confidentiality protection at least collection requirements contained in ACTION: Notice.
equal to that provided by the Freedom this collection are as follows:
of Information Act (FOIA). See 5 U.S.C. Section 11.21(a) requires EAS SUMMARY: The Commission is required
552 (2006), amended by OPEN Participants to provide the identifying to report annually to Congress on the
Government Act of 2007, Public Law information required by the EAS Test status of competition in markets for the
110–175, 121 Stat. 2524 (stating the Reporting System (ETRS) no later than delivery of video programming. This
FOIA confidentiality standard, along sixty days after the publication in the document solicits data, information, and
with relevant exemptions). Federal Register of a notice announcing comment on the status of competition in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1
44108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices

regulations applicable to DBS systems video programming) made it more services for MVPD services? When
and telephone MVPDs. How do difficult for competitors to acquire marketing their video services, have
regulatory disparities affect programming by restricting access or MVPDs encouraged households to
competition? What specific actions raising prices? What is the impact of switch away from OVD services and
could the Commission take to facilitate rising programming prices and rising over-the-air broadcast services and rely
competition in the marketplace for the retransmission consent fees on MVPD more on MVPD services? What actions
delivery of video programming? business models and competitive have MVPDs taken in response to actual
12. We seek comment on the impact strategies? or potential competition from OVDs and
of marketplace conditions on MVPD 16. To enhance their competitive broadcast stations?
competition. We also request data, position in the marketplace for the
information, and comment regarding the delivery of video programming, MVPDs 3. Selected MVPD Operating and
entry and exit of MVPDs in 2014. We have deployed TV Everywhere, which Financial Statistics
are specifically interested in entry that allows MVPD subscribers to access both 20. In the 16th Report, we provided
increases the number of MVPDs linear and video-on-demand (VOD) the following MVPD operating and
available to consumers and exit that programs on a variety of in-home and financial statistics: Video packages and
reduces the number of MVPDs available mobile Internet-connected devices. In pricing, number of video subscribers
to consumers. addition to TV Everywhere, which and penetration rates, and revenue. We
requires an MVPD subscription, some expect to report comparable statistics in
2. MVPD Business Models and
MVPDs are offering online video the 17th Report. We seek data on the
Competitive Strategies
packages, which do not require an
13. MVPDs may choose from a variety number of housing units passed
MVPD subscription, to attract cord
of business models and competitive nationally, the number of subscribers,
cutters and cord nevers. We request
strategies to attract and retain and the penetration rates. We seek data
comment on the competitive strategies
subscribers and viewers. We seek on MVPD subscriber losses and the
of MVPDs launching online video
descriptions of MVPD business models factors leading to those losses,
services separate from their MVPD
and competitive strategies in the especially competition from OVDs. We
services.
marketplace for the delivery of video 17. Some MVPDs have added various request data on MVPD revenue. We
programming. How do MVPDs attract video-related fees to monthly billing recognize that cable and telephone
new subscribers and retain existing statements. Such fees include, for MVPDs also provide Internet and phone
subscribers? How do MVPDs distinguish instance, a broadcast fee to partially services using their own facilities. Our
their video services from their closest recoup retransmission consent fees focus, however, is the market for the
competitors? Do bundles of video, charged by local broadcast stations and delivery of video programming, and
Internet, and voice services help attract a sports fee to defray the cost of sports commenters submitting data for
and retain video subscribers? Do cable programming. We seek comment on the operating and financial statistics should
and telephone MVPDs offering bundles competitive strategy associated with separate video from non-video services.
over wireline facilities with two-way adding video-related fees as opposed to Broadcast Television Stations
capability have competitive advantages raising monthly subscription prices. Do
over DBS MVPDs offering video using such fees enable MVPDs to better attract 4. Broadcast Television Station
satellites with one-way capability and new subscribers and retain existing Providers
Internet and phone services using subscribers? 21. Providers of broadcast television
cooperative arrangements with other 18. We request information on
services include both individual and
entities? Is there a trend to unbundle or MVPDs’ deployment of new
group-owned stations that hold licenses
offer smaller, less expensive video technologies, including transitioning to
to broadcast video programming to
packages? Some MVPDs are now all-digital distribution, adding Internet
consumers. Broadcast stations deliver
offering skinny bundles that include Protocol (IP)-delivered video
programming, deploying more efficient video programming over the air to
Internet and video packages with a
video encoding technologies (e.g., consumers. How many households view
relatively small number of video
MPEG–4 and High Efficiency Video broadcast programming over-the-air
channels. Are skinny bundles attracting
Coding (HEVC)), developing and testing exclusively, and how many households
cord cutters (households that have
enhanced transmission technologies receive such programming over the air
cancelled MVPD service) and cord
(e.g., DOCSIS 3.1) and expanding 3–D on some televisions not connected to an
nevers (households that have never had
and 4K services. MVPD service? How many households
MVPD service) or helping to retain
19. We are interested in the extent of use a combination of over-the-air
existing subscribers that may have been
substitution between MVPD services, stations and OVD services?
thinking about cutting the cord?
14. Do some MVPDs, such as those of OVD services, and over-the-air 22. Horizontal Concentration.
a certain size, have a competitive broadcast television. We realize that Commission rules limit the number of
advantage in the marketplace for the substitution represents only part of the broadcast television stations an entity
delivery of video programming? Do competitive interaction between can own in a DMA, depending on the
some MVPDs pay lower prices for video MVPDs, broadcasters, and OVDs. number of independently owned
programming? Do the competitive Consumers may also use OVDs and stations in the market. Does group
strategies of certain MVPDs include broadcast stations to supplement (i.e., ownership strengthen the competitive
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

arrangements with content providers add to) and complement (i.e., combine position of broadcast stations in the
that make it more difficult for with) their MVPD services. Our primary marketplace for the delivery of video
competitors to acquire programming on focus, however, is substitution. What programming, either through increased
reasonable terms? To the extent that any video services do MVPDs offer that advertising revenue or lower prices for
of these answers is yes, please describe OVDs and broadcast stations do not? To video programming? Does it affect the
the characteristics of such MVPDs. what extent do the prices of MVPD prices, terms or conditions of carriage
15. Have vertically integrated MVPDs services lead households to substitute agreements with MVPDs? What is the
(i.e., MVPDs with ownership interest in OVD services and over-the-air broadcast impact of group ownership on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44109

competitive position of independently- agreements (JSAs), local marketing pre-tax profits; and capital
owned stations? agreements (LMAs), and shared services expenditures. We seek data on the
23. Vertical Integration. Does vertical agreements (SSAs) affect the provision viewership of broadcast television
integration strengthen a broadcast of local news offered by broadcast stations from over-the-air reception,
station’s ability to negotiate carriage stations, and if so, how? Has online MVPD carriage, online viewing, and
rights with MVPDs? Are vertically delivery contributed to increased mobile TV. Has multicasting, online
integrated broadcast stations stronger investment in broadcast station local viewing, and/or mobile TV increased
competitors in the marketplace for the news and information programming? broadcast station viewership in the
delivery of video programming? 27. For many years, broadcast marketplace for the delivery of video
24. Regulatory and Market Conditions television networks used their local programming? We seek data on
Affecting Competition. The broadcast television-affiliated stations as broadcast television station revenues
Commission’s spectrum allocation and their primary distributor of from advertising, network
licensing policies affect broadcast programming. Broadcast network compensation, retransmission consent
television by limiting the number of programming, however, has become fees, ancillary services, and subscription
stations located in a given geographic increasingly available from OVDs. In fees from OVD offerings. We seek
area. Commission rules limit the addition, broadcast networks are information and comment on the
number of broadcast television stations increasingly providing OVD services impact, if any, of JSAs, LMAs and SSAs
an entity can own in a DMA as well as themselves to strengthen their on retransmission consent negotiations
limit the aggregate national audience competitive position in the market for and fees.
reach of commonly owned broadcast delivery of video programming. Are
television stations. The Commission’s other broadcast networks planning to Online Video Distributors
territorial exclusivity rule restricts the offer subscription VOD and live 7. OVD Providers
geographic area in which a television programming, either as standalone OVD
broadcast station may obtain exclusive 30. In the video marketplace, Internet-
services or through joint ventures like
rights to video programming. We seek delivered video services are expanding
Hulu and Hulu Plus? How successful
data, information, and comment on the and evolving quickly and significantly.
are their subscription offerings, relative
impact of these regulations, the impact Linear programming is becoming
to their free offerings? When networks
of the upcoming incentive auction, and increasingly available. And new OVD
offer their programming as OVDs, how
the potential impact of our recent service offerings are provided by both
does this impact the financial well-
Declaratory Ruling regarding foreign being of affiliated stations that new entrants to the marketplace and
broadcast investment on competition in previously offered such programming to existing industry participants
the marketplace for the delivery of video the public on an exclusive basis? Have developing new products. The
programming. local broadcast stations adapted their Commission has in the past defined an
business models and competitive ‘‘OVD’’ as any entity that offers video
5. Broadcast Television Station Business content by means of the Internet or
Models and Competitive Strategies strategies in ways that indicate that they
view MVPDs and OVDs as competitors? other Internet Protocol (IP)-based
25. What competitive strategies are We seek comment generally on the transmission path provided by a person
broadcast television stations using to effect of the broadcast networks’ or entity other than the OVD. Pursuant
distinguish themselves from other increasing provision of OVD service. In to the definition, an OVD has not
broadcast television stations? What particular, what effect is this having on included an MVPD inside its MVPD
competitive strategies are broadcast the relationship between broadcast footprint or an MVPD to the extent it is
stations using to strengthen their networks and their affiliates? What offering online video content as a
competitive position in the market for competitive strategies are broadcast component of an MVPD subscription to
the delivery of video programming? We stations using to remain important to customers whose homes are inside its
seek data, information, and comment on broadcast networks for program MVPD footprint. As these developments
the use of multicast streams, the amount distribution? continue apace, the Commission may
of HD programming, mobile TV, and 28. We are interested in the extent of wish to consider modifying the
broadcast station Web sites. We seek substitution between over-the-air definition of ‘‘OVD’’ it has used in
comment regarding the ability of services and MVPDs and between over- previous Reports to better reflect the
broadcast stations to secure MVPD the-air services and OVDs. Do broadcast evolving marketplace. For instance,
carriage of their multicast signals and stations compare their video services to some traditional MVPDs are offering or
the impact of such carriage on the MVPD and OVD services? To what considering offering Internet-delivered
financial viability of their multicast extent do broadcast stations market services that would not be restricted to
operations. What effect does the ability themselves as substitutes for MVPD and subscribers to their traditional MVPD
to offer HD or ultra HD programming OVD services? What specific marketing services. Moreover, the Commission has
have on a broadcast station’s ability to activities have broadcast stations used, opened a proceeding to consider
compete in the marketplace for the if any, to encourage households to whether an Internet-delivered service
delivery of video programming? What switch away from MVPDs and OVDs that offers linear programming, as
progress has been made regarding and rely more on over-the-air services? DISH’s Sling TV, for example, does,
mobile TV? In what ways are should be considered to be an MVPD as
broadcasters using their stations’ Web 6. Selected Broadcast Television Station that term is defined in the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

sites to strengthen their competitive Operating and Financial Statistics Communications Act. We will want to
position in the marketplace for the 29. In the 16th Report, we provided consider any revised definition of OVD
delivery of video programming? the following broadcast television in coordination with any action the
26. To what extent do broadcast station operating and financial statistics: Commission may take in the MVPD
stations market themselves as providing Audiences; revenue from advertising, proceeding. In the meantime, for
unique services, such as local news, network compensation, retransmission purposes of the 17th Report we seek
sports, weather and emergency alerts, to consent fees, ancillary services, and data on services that fall within our
increase viewership? Do joint sales online services; cash flow estimates and previous definition of OVD and on other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM 24JYN1
Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:24:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:24:40
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice.
Dates		Interested parties may file comments, on or before August 21, 2015, and reply comments on or before September 21, 2015.
Contact		Danny Bring, Media Bureau (202) 418- 2164, or email at [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 44106