FCC Web Documents citing 76.1207

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf
  • to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively significantly harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. Cox Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by Its SDV Implementation Cox's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order, TWC's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. H. Cox Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the Cox NAL andOrder, Cox's implementation
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order, TWC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2118A1.txt
  • a requirement that no later than July 1, 2004, all digital cable systems must support unidirectional digital cable products through the provisioning of PODs and conformance with the technical standards governing POD-Host interfaces and the POD copy protection system. DISCUSSION The relevant standard for consideration of the request for waiver is found in Section 629(c) of the Act and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. Section 629(c) provides that the Commission: shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection [629](a) for a limited time upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2544A1.txt
  • a requirement that no later than July 1, 2004, all digital cable systems must support unidirectional digital cable products through the provisioning of PODs and conformance with the technical standards governing POD-Host interfaces and the POD copy protection system. DISCUSSION The relevant standard for consideration of the request for waiver is found in Section 629(c) of the Act and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. Section 629(c) provides that the Commission: shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection [629](a) for a limited time upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1733A1.txt
  • 2006 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) FILED WITH THE COMMISSION CSR-7049-Z/CS Docket No. 97-80 Comment Date: September 18, 2006 Reply Comment Date: September 28, 2006 Charter Communications Inc. (``Charter'' or ``Petitioner'') has filed a request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''), and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules for waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, which prohibits multichannel video programming distributors from offering navigation devices that perform both conditional access and other functions, for seven specific set-top box models. Charter asserts that its Waiver Request is limited in scope to the types of devices the Commission identified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2258A1.txt
  • C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) FILED WITH THE COMMISSION CSR-7057-Z/CS Docket No. 97-80 Comment Date: November 30, 2006 Reply Comment Date: December 11, 2006 Bend Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a BendBroadband (``BendBroadband'' or ``Petitioner'') has filed a request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, for waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules on offering navigation devices that perform both conditional access and other functions with respect to the Motorola DCT-700 set-top box (the ``DCT-700''). BendBroadband asserts that its Waiver Request is limited in scope to the type of device the Commission identified in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2543A1.txt
  • December 18, 2006 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) FILED WITH THE COMMISSION CSR-7078-Z Docket No. 97-80 Comment Date: January 8, 2007 Reply Comment Date: January 18, 2007 Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision'' or ``Petitioner'') has filed a request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, for limited waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules on offering navigation devices that perform both conditional access and other functions. Cablevision seeks either (1) a clarification that navigation devices that rely upon separate security other than CableCARDs - specifically, SmartCards, a separable-security conditional access system developed by NDS Group
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2008A1.txt
  • pass an average of 55 homes per mile. Charter asserts that the relief it seeks is consistent with the Commission's policy goal of increased broadband deployment in rural areas because the relief would offset the higher infrastructure costs associated with low-density systems. discussion Charter makes its request for waiver pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Act and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. In addition, because Charter characterizes its request as one for ``low-cost, limited capability'' devices as described in the Commission's 2005 Deferral Order, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2009A1.txt
  • to receive any digital broadcast signals unless they have a digital set-top box like the DCT-700, or the cable company downconverts the digital signal to lower-quality analog signals.'' DISCUSSION OneSource makes its request pursuant to the general waiver provisions of Section 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules, or, alternatively, Section 629(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. In addition, because OneSource characterizes both the DCT-700 and the DCT-3416 as ``low-cost'' devices, we will evaluate the request under the waiver policy announced in the 2005 Deferral Order as well. For the reasons previously set forth in the January 10 Orders, we decline to grant the Waiver Request under the standard set forth in Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2916A1.txt
  • the Commission in the 2005 Deferral Order for low-cost, limited-capability set-top boxes. The Bureau found good cause, however, to conditionally grant Bend Cable Communications d/b/a BendBroadband (``BendBroadband'') a waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules. The Waiver Requests and Comments Armstrong Utilities, Inc. Pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, Armstrong Utilities, Inc. (``Armstrong'') seeks waiver of the integration ban to allow it to continue to place into service new integrated digital cable set-top boxes after July 1, 2007. Armstrong seeks relief very similar to what the National Cable and Telecommunications Association seeks in its waiver request: Armstrong seeks waiver of the integration ban for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2917A1.txt
  • of FCC regulations by larger MSOs and their vendors,'' but if waiver is granted, it should be done with ``forward-looking obligations to assure compliance and the achievement of a national competitive market in `2-way' navigation devices rather than perpetual future renewal.'' III. Discussion GCL makes its request for waiver pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Act and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. As discussed below, and consistent with the Bureau's conclusions in the January 10 Orders and the May 4 Orders, we find that we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2919A1.txt
  • could request deferral of the July 1, 2007 deadline if they could demonstrate that they have placed orders for compliant set-top boxes that will not be fulfilled in time for them to comply with the deadline. The Waiver Request Pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, Massillon seeks a waiver of the integration ban to allow it to place into service integrated set-top boxes it will have in inventory after the July 1, 2007 deadline. Massillon states that it is a ``small, locally-run, family-owned'' cable operator with approximately 46,000 customers. Massillon explains that it invested approximately $1 million in the purchase and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2920A1.txt
  • apply to its members, rural telephone companies. OPASTCO stresses that ``grant of the waiver may be especially appropriate for the increasing number of small MVPDs that provide Internet Protocol television (``IPTV'') utilizing fiber or copper-based digital subscriber line (``DSL'') technology. discussion NCTA argues that its request ``satisfies the special waiver provision in Section 629(c) of the Communications Act and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, as well as the general standards of Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules.'' Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. As discussed below, we find that the request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2921A1.txt
  • Volcano Vision claims that without a waiver it would have to strand approximately $500,000 worth of set-top boxes which would create a financial hardship for a company of its size. The Rural ATM Digital Providers Group and the IPTV Operators Group Pursuant to Sections 629(a) and 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, the members of the Rural ATM Digital Video Providers Group and the IPTV Operators Group (``ATM and IPTV Providers Group'') seek permanent waiver of the Commission's open interface rule (i.e., these providers seek waiver so that they may offer a separated security function that does not use a commonly used interface, and does not conform to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3316A1.txt
  • set-top boxes that it concluded were not the ``low-cost, limited-capability'' set-top boxes that the Commission committed to exempt from the integration ban in the 2005 Deferral Order. The Waiver Requests and Comments Great Plains On May 9, 2007, Great Plains filed a request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, for waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules on offering integrated digital cable set-top boxes after July 1, 2007. Great Plains limits its request to boxes that it deploys to its subscribers who receive one-way service, and seeks waiver until the earlier of: (i) the commercial availability of non-integrated set-top
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3317A1.txt
  • is the case, and (4) XIT must publicly commit to this plan by sworn declaration. As we explained in the BendBroadband Order, such a declaration will ``demonstrate [a] commitment to move to an all-digital network.'' ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 549, and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1207, the requests for waiver filed by Colo Telephone Company, Griswold Cooperative Telephone Company, Coon Creek Telephone Company and Coon Creek Telecommunications Corp., Wellman Cooperative Telephone Association, Interstate Cablevision Company, NTS Communications, Inc., and XIT Telecommunication & Technology LTD, of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1), IS DENIED. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3318A1.txt
  • Electronics Association (``CEA'') states that the Bureau should not grant waiver requests that fall outside of the narrowly defined criteria that have been established to show good cause for waiver, and asserts that Comsouth has not met any of those criteria. DISCUSSION Comsouth makes its request pursuant to the general waiver provision of Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules, Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, and Section 629(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As discussed below, and consistent with the reasons previously set forth in the January 10 Orders and the Armstrong Order, we find that the Waiver Request does not justify the grant of waiver under any of these standards. We therefore deny Comsouth's request. Section 629(c) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3319A1.txt
  • July 1, 2007 deadline did not justify a waiver of the rule. Finally, the Bureau denied ten waiver requests for set-top boxes that it concluded were not the ``low-cost, limited-capability'' set-top boxes that the Commission committed to exempt from the integration ban in the 2005 Deferral Order. The Waiver Request Pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules, and the 2005 Deferral Order, Innovative seeks a waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) to allow it to continue to deploy the integrated Motorola DCT-1000 (``DCT-1000'') and the Motorola DCT-2000 (``DCT-2000'') set-top boxes until December 31, 2009. Innovative states that it is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.txt
  • plan and restates its request that the Commission either reconsider its DBS exemption or ``clarify that the threshold for qualifying for the § 76.1204(a)(2) exemption is low enough for DirectTV (and therefore BendBroadband) to clear it.'' discussion BendBroadband makes its request for waiver ``[p]ursuant to Sections 629(c) and 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules.'' Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. In addition, because BendBroadband characterizes its request as one for a ``low-cost, limited capability'' device as described in the Commission's 2005 Deferral Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-48A1.txt
  • rules. Finally, in response to CEA's contention that it has improperly requested a ``perpetual'' waiver under Section 629(c), Cablevision responds that ``it would be sufficient for the Commission to grant it until the cable industry's deployment of downloadable conditional access.'' discussion Cablevision makes its request for waiver ``[p]ursuant to [Section 629 of the Communications Act] and Sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules.'' Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. As described in detail below, we do not believe that Cablevision meets the standard for waiver found in Section 629(c) of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-49A1.txt
  • extends to the natural evolution of the specific boxes for which it seeks waiver and does not include any boxes that will have ``DVR, HD, multiple tuning, or broadband Internet access,'' and claims that it is not seeking a waiver for any box that has advanced capabilities. discussion Comcast makes its request for waiver ``[p]ursuant to Sections 1.3, 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules and Section 629(c) of the Communications Act.'' Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) and the Commission's 2005 Deferral Order, as well as under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules. As discussed below, we find that the request does not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-872A1.txt
  • 2007 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION LIBERTY CABLEVISION FILES REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(1) WITH THE COMMISSION CSR-7124-Z/CS Docket No. 97-80 Comment Date: March 19, 2007 Reply Comment Date: March 29, 2007 Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Ltd. (``Liberty'' or ``Petitioner'') has filed a request pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Sections 76.7 and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules for waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's rules on offering navigation devices that perform both conditional access and other functions with respect to the Motorola DCT-700 set-top box (the ``DCT-700''). Liberty asserts that its Waiver Request is limited to the relief previously granted to BendBroadband. Liberty explains that it has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1632A1.txt
  • Petitioners believe that, as a result of continuing, non-speculative financial difficulties, extensions of the waiver beyond this initial one-year period are warranted, they may submit updated financial and other information for our consideration.''). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 76.7. RCN also submitted its Extension Request pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 549(c), and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons elucidated in the Financial Hardship Order, we conclude that RCN's Extension Request, as submitted, does not justify a waiver under Section 629(c). Financial Hardship Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 13423-4, ¶¶ 32-33. Those devices are the Motorola DCT-700, Motorola DCT-1000, Motorola DCT-2500, Motorola DCT-2000, Motorola DSR-410, Motorola DSR-470, Scientific Atlanta Explorer 2100, Scientific
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.txt
  • to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively significantly harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. Cox Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by Its SDV Implementation Cox's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.txt
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.txt
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.txt
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order, TWC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.txt
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. H. Cox Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the Cox NAL andOrder, Cox's implementation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.txt
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order, TWC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2399A1.txt
  • 09-2399 Released: November 9, 2009 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON INTEL'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE IEEE-1394 OUTPUT REQUIREMENT CS Docket No. 97-80 / CSR-8229-Z Comment Date: November 30, 2009 Reply Comment Date: December 10, 2009 Intel Corporation (``Intel'') has filed a request pursuant to Sections 629(a) and 629(c) of the Communications Act and 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules for waiver of part of Section 76.640(b)(4)(ii) of the Commission's rules. Section 76.640(b)(4)(ii) requires cable operators to include a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes (``STBs'') that they acquire for distribution to customers. Intel seeks waiver of this rule section with respect to the IEEE 1394 interface
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1516A1.txt
  • believe it would be inconsistent with consumer expectations and thus affirmatively misleading for digital cable ready receivers not to include digital over-the-air reception capability.'' On June 7, 2011, TiVo filed a request for waiver of the Commission's tuner requirements with respect to its TiVo Premiere Elite DVR, pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act and Sections 1.3, 76.7, and 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. TiVo explained that it ``recently developed the Premiere Elite, which is an all-digital, CableCard-enabled DVR designed specifically for use in all-digital cable systems.'' Further, TiVo explained that it ``is already taking orders for a version of the Premier Elite from cable operators.'' TiVo states that it can sell the product to cable operators for lease to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269111A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269111A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269111A4.txt
  • In the Matter of Comcast Corporation's Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 76.120(a)(1), CSR-7017-Z, CS Docket No 97-80, DA-06-2543, CS Docket No 97-80, filed 5/17/06 (waiver proceeding still pending past the statutory ``shot clock''); 47 U.S.C. § 549(c) (``the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection''); 47 C.F.R. § 76.1207 (omitting the ninety day ``shot clock''). H.R. REP. No. 109-470, at 3 (2006). While the Order purportedly refrains from explicitly preempting ``statewide franchising decisions'' and only addresses ``decisions made by [instrumentalities of the state, such as] county - or municipal level franchising authorities,'' this dubious distinction has questionable legal basis. Moreover, the Commission's assertion - ``we lack a sufficient record
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-46A1.txt
  • the deployment of the Subject Boxes will have no effect on cable operators' obligation to support CableCARD technology. Finally, Evolution states that its waiver request is time-limited as required by Section 629(c) of the Act. discussion Evolution makes its request for waiver pursuant to Section 629(c) of the Communications Act, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Section 76.1207 of the Commission's rules. Alternatively, Evolution seeks waiver pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules as clarified by the 2005 Deferral Order. Accordingly, we analyze its request pursuant to the waiver standards set forth in Section 629(c) and under the general waiver provisions found in Sections 1.3 and 76.7 of the Commission's rules as clarified by the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products. We will apply the procedural rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 76.7, consistent with our attempt to move toward more uniform procedural rules for Part 76.227 The relevant rule is in Section 76.1207. 103. Some commenters favor granting waivers liberally to prevent stifling of innovation.228 Ameritech argues MVPDs need flexibility to develop non-security, non-access functions in order to differentiate their equipment from competitor's equipment.229 Circuit City contends that due to the statutory mandate to assure a national competitive market, requests for waivers must be analyzed critically to ensure that a waiver is necessary.230
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively significantly harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. Cox Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by Its SDV Implementation 37. Cox's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 37. TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 37. TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-120A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 39. As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-122A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. H. Cox Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 35. As we noted in the Cox NAL andOrder, Cox's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-123A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. E. TWC Must Issue Refunds to Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 39. As we noted in the TWC NAL and Order,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products. We will apply the procedural rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 76.7, consistent with our attempt to move toward more uniform procedural rules for Part 76.227 The relevant rule is in Section 76.1207. 103. Some commenters favor granting waivers liberally to prevent stifling of innovation.228 Ameritech argues MVPDs need flexibility to develop non-security, non-access functions in order to differentiate their equipment from competitor's equipment.229 Circuit City contends that due to the statutory mandate to assure a national competitive market, requests for waivers must be analyzed critically to ensure that a waiver is necessary.230
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively significantly harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that Cox could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. Cox Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by Its SDV Implementation 37. Cox's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 37. TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • access to those switched channels for its subscribers using CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. Moreover, such implementation of SDV, without having in place standards to ensure bi-directional compatibility of cable television systems and CE equipment, effectively harms the Commission's policies to move navigation devices toward a fully competitive market. We note that TWC could have sought a waiver of these rules under Section 76.1207, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of twenty thousand ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201 ($10,000), 76.640(b)(1)(i) ($5,000), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) ($5,000) of the Commission's Rules. D. TWC Must Issue Refunds To Customers Harmed by its SDV Implementation 37. TWC's implementation of SDV has harmed its customers
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • rules to common carriers and affiliates. [149]76.100576.1010 [Reserved] Subpart P -- Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices [150]76.1200 Definitions. [151]76.1201 Rights of subscribers to use or attach navigation devices. [152]76.1202 Availability of navigation devices. [153]76.1203 Incidence of harm. [154]76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access or security functions. [155]76.1205 Availability of interface information. [156]76.1206 Equipment sale or lease charge subsidy prohibition. [157]76.1207 Waivers. [158]76.1208 Sunset of regulations. [159]76.1209 Theft of service. [160]76.1210 Effect on other rules. Subpart Q -- Regulation of Carriage Agreements [161]76.1300 Definitions. [162]76.1301 Prohibited practices. [163]76.1302 Carriage agreement proceedings. [164]76.13031305 [Reserved] Subpart R -- Telecommunications Act Implementation [165]76.1400 Purpose. [166]76.1402 CPST rate complaints. [167]76.1404 Use of cable facilities by local exchange carriers. Subpart S -- Open Video Systems [168]76.1500
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • 76.1005-76.1010 [Reserved] Subpart P-Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices § 76.1200 Definitions. § 76.1201 Rights of subscribers to use or attach navigation devices. § 76.1202 Availability of navigation devices. § 76.1203 Incidence of harm. § 76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional access or security functions. § 76.1205 Availability of interface information. § 76.1206 Equipment sale or lease charge subsidy prohibition. § 76.1207 Waivers. § 76.1208 Sunset of regulations. § 76.1209 Theft of service. Page 4of 243 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 5/6/2011 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a0b1c7045abd9e3f08f6d3233a640e58&rg... § 76.1210 Effect on other rules. Subpart Q-Regulation of Carriage Agreements § 76.1300 Definitions. § 76.1301 Prohibited practices. § 76.1302 Carriage agreement proceedings. §§ 76.1303-76.1305 [Reserved] Subpart R-Telecommunications Act Implementation § 76.1400 Purpose. § 76.1402 CPST rate complaints. §