FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,115
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
single integrated device.4 Originally, the Commission established January 1, 2005 as the deadline for
compliance with the integration ban.' On two occasions, the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association ("NCTA"), on behalf of all cable operators, sought - and obtained - extensions of that
deadline.6 The Commission ultimately fixed July 1, 2007 as the deadline in order to afford cable
operators additional time to determine the feasibility of developing a downloadable security function that
would permit compliance with the Commission's rules without incurring the cable operator and consumer
costs associated with the separation of hardware.7
3. The purpose of the integration ban is to assure reliance by both cable operators and
consumer electronics manufacturers on a common separated security solution.8 This "common reliance"
is necessary to achieve the broader goal of Section 629 - i.e., to allow consumers the option of purchasing
navigation devices from sources other than their MVPD.9 Although the cable industry has challenged the
lawfulness of the integration ban on three separate occasions, in each of those cases the D.C. Circuit
denied those petitions.' In limited circumstances, however, operators may be eligible for waiver of the
4 See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of
Navigation Devices, 13 FCC Red 14775, 14803, 1 69 (1998) ("First Report and Order") (adopting Section 76.1204
of the Commission's rules, subsection (a)(1) of which (1) required multichannel video programming distributors
("MVPDs") to make available by July 1, 2000 a security element separate from the basic navigation device (i.e., the
CableCARD), and, in its original form, (2) prohibited MVPDs covered by this subsection from "plac[ing] in service
new navigation devices ... that perform both conditional access and other functions in a single integrated device"
after January 1, 2005); see also 47 C.F.R. 76.1204(a)(1) (1998).
s First Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 14803, 69.
6 In April 2003, the Commission extended the effective date of the integration ban until July 1, 2006. See
Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications .lct of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation
Devices. 18 FCC Rcd 7924, 7926, 4 (2003) ("Extension Order"). Then, in 2005, the Commission further extended
that date until July 1, 2007. See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, 20 FCC Rcd 6794, 6810. 31 ("2005 Deferral Order").
7 2005 Deferral Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 6810, 31. Last year the Commission adopted rules to make the integration
ban more lenient by exempting all one-way, non-recording set top boxes from the integration ban. Implementation
of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, 25 FCC
Rcd 14657, 14679-14682. 14701 45-51 (2010) ("Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration")
(amending Section 76.1204 of the Commission's rules).
S See Cablevision Systems Corporation's Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules,
22 FCC Rcd 220, 226, 19 (2007) (citing the 2005 Deferral Order, 20 FCC Red at 6809, 30) (explaining why the
Commission "require[d] MVPDs and consumer electronics manufacturers to rely upon identical separated security
with regard to hardware-based conditional access solutions").
9 See S. REP. 104-230, at 181 (1996) (Conf. Rep.). See also Bellsouth Interactive Media Services, LLC, 19 FCC
Red 15607, 15608, 2 (2004). As the Bureau noted. Congress characterized the transition to competition in
navigation devices as an important goal. stating that competitionin in the manufacturing and distribution of
consumer devices has always led to innovation, lower prices and higher quality."
10 Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 526 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Charter Comm., Inc. v. FCC, 460 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir.
2006); General Instrument Corp. v. FCC, 213 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The Commission argued, and the D.C.
Circuit agreed, that the integration ban was a reasonable means to meet Section 629's directive. Charter Comm.,
Inc. v. FCC, 460 F.3d 31, 41 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("this court is bound to defer to the FCC's predictive judgment that,
'[albsent common reliance on an identical security function, we do not foresee the market developing in a manner
consistent with our statutory obligation.'").
" For example, Section 629(c) provides that the Commission shall grant a waiver of its regulations implementing
Section 629(a) upon an appropriate showing that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/287/: accessed July 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.