FCC Web Documents citing 76.1202

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
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Second Supplemental LOI''). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI''). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Divison, Enforcment Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI''). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) (``LOI Response''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Second Supplemental LOI''). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) (``LOI Response''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• 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
  • CableCARDs'' and outlines those steps in its reply. Even if the timeline were reasonable, CEA asserts that the DCAS proposal presented by NCTA is not a suitable alternative to CableCARDs because of the lack of transparency and reasonable license terms. Specifically, CEA expresses concern that the DCAS license overreaches by prohibiting ``harm to cable service,'' in contrast to the Section 76.1202 prohibition on system operator-imposed restrictions other than those required to prevent electrical or physical harm or theft of service. CEA argues that this small variation in language results in cable operators exercising significantly more control over the functionality of their boxes than allowed in the rule. CEA and TiVo also refute the cost estimates provided by NCTA in support of
• 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
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Second Supplemental LOI''). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• 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
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI''). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Divison, Enforcment Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• 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
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI''). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• 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
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) (``LOI Response''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• 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
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) (``Second Supplemental LOI''). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• 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
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) (``Supplemental LOI''). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) (``LOI Response''). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.txt
  • at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1200 et seq. See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14776 ¶ 2. 47 U.S.C. § 549. Section 629 was adopted as part of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. § 549(a). See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14778, 14787 ¶¶ 8, 34; see 47 C.F.R. § 76.1205. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14775, 14776 ¶ 2. The House Report stated that [C]ompetition in the manufacturing and distribution of consumer devices has always led to innovation, lower prices and higher quality. Clearly, consumers will benefit from having more choices among telecommunications subscription services arriving by various distribution services. H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-354A1.txt
  • the Commission determined that commercial availability could be achieved by requiring that the security function of converter boxes and other navigation devices be separated from non-security functions. The Commission adopted other rules designed to foster a competitive market for navigation devices, including Section 76.1201, which gives subscribers a right to attach compatible navigation devices to an MVPD system, and Section 76.1202, which prohibits MVPDs from taking actions that prevent navigation devices that do not perform security functions from being made available to subscribers from sources unaffiliated with the MVPD. Regarding EPGs, such as Guide Plus+, the Commission stated its commitment to ``encourage the development of the market for the provision of EPG services as part of its broader goal of promoting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.txt
  • experimentation and assessment. Id. CableLabs has not yet certified any vendor's equipment. See Karen Brown, PacketCable Tests Firm Up Cable's IP-Telephony Link, BroadbandWeek.com, at http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/020603/print/020603_telecom_three.htm (visited Oct. 18, 2002). CableLabs established the specifications in late 2000. See CableLabs, Cablelabs Releases New Interim PacketCable Specifications (press release), Nov. 28, 2000. NCTA Comments at 51. 47 U.S.C. § 549. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1202 and 76.1204. See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices (``Navigation Report and Order''), 13 FCC Rcd 14775 (1998). Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, 14 FCC Rcd 7596 (1999); see 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204. The POD requirement is intended to permit portability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.txt
  • Oct. 3, 2003). CableLabs, PacketCable Qualification Process Ready for 2002 (press release), Nov. 6, 2002. CableLabs established the specifications in late 2000. See CableLabs, Cablelabs Releases New Interim PacketCable Specifications (press release), Nov. 28, 2000. Cable Labs, Two CMS and Additional PaketCable Devices Get Certified/Qualified in Wave 25 (press release), Apr. 11, 2003. 47 U.S.C. § 549. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1202 and 76.1204. See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices 13 FCC Rcd 14775 (1998) (``First Navigation Report and Order''). The POD, or CableCARD requirement is intended to permit portability among set-top boxes, which will increase the market base and facilitate volume production. First Navigation Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-181A1.txt
  • or will require the same level of copy protection upon the termination of existing licenses, with regard to MSO-provided devices as they do commercially available devices. Should additional evidence indicate that content providers are requiring disparate measures of copy protection from different industry segments, the Commission will take appropriate action.''). 47 U.S.C. § 549(b); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. 47 C.F.R. § 76.640(b)(4)(ii). On June 18, 2010, the Media Bureau granted a waiver of this rule for all set-top boxes that include an IP-based interface pending the outcome of this rulemaking. Intel Corporation, Motorola, Inc., and TiVo, Inc Requests for Waiver of Section 76.640(b)(4)(ii) of the Commission's Rules, DA 10-1094 (MB rel. June 18, 2010). See 1394 Trade Association,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • features of navigation devices available to subscribers.48 30. In addition to being directly restrained from attaching navigation equipment, consumers must also not be precluded from the possibility of obtaining equipment from commercial outlets by virtue of contractual or other restrictions on the availability of equipment that the service provider might seek to directly impose on suppliers of equipment. The rules (§76.1202) thus additionally enforce the right to attach by precluding contractual or other arrangements, other than those involving equipment performing conditional access or security functions, that prevent navigation devices from being made available to subscribers from retailers, manufacturers, or other vendors that are unaffiliated with that such service provider. 31. The right to attach is supported by numerous commenters.49 CEMA contends
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1200 et seq. See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14776 ¶ 2. 47 U.S.C. § 549. Section 629 was adopted as part of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. § 549(a). See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14778, 14787 ¶¶ 8, 34; see 47 C.F.R. § 76.1205. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14775, 14776 ¶ 2. The House Report stated that [C]ompetition in the manufacturing and distribution of consumer devices has always led to innovation, lower prices and higher quality. Clearly, consumers will benefit from having more choices among telecommunications subscription services arriving by various distribution services. H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.txt
  • at developing a new generation of interoperable set-top boxes that will facilitate the provision of an expanded range of interactive services to cable customers. See http://www.opencable.com. See, e.g., ``OpenCable POD Copy Protection System,'' IS-POD-CP-INT01-000107, at 2. See 47 U.S.C. §544a(a)(4). See 47 U.S.C. 544a(c) 2)(D). See also H.R. Rep.No. 104-458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (170-71) 1996. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§76.1202, 1204. See Letter from Robert S. Schwartz to Magalie R. Salas, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 2, 2000), in CS Docket No. 97-80. See Letter from Richard R. Green to Magalie R. Salas, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 16, 2000), in CS Docket No. 97-80. Id. We note that this Notice only addresses cable
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental LOI"). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Second Supplemental LOI"). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI"). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Divison, Enforcment Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI"). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-120A1.html
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Supplemental LOI"). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) ("LOI Response"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-122A1.html
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental LOI"). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Second Supplemental LOI"). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-123A1.html
  • n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Supplemental LOI"). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2007) ("LOI Response"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2000/fcc00341.doc
  • proceeding is the fact that the draft DFAST license mandates, in addition to the DFAST technology, the use of the 5C technology. B. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Circuit City and other commenters assert that the draft DFAST license, in purporting to impose copy protection constraints on consumer electronics (``CE'') and information technology (``IT'') host devices directly violates Sections 76.1204(c) and 76.1202 of the Commission's navigation devices rules. Circuit City argues that if the DFAST copy protection functions performed by OpenCable host devices are determined to serve ``conditional access'' or ``security'' functions, the OpenCable specification would clearly violate the Commission's navigation devices rules. Circuit City contends that the purpose of the Commission's regulations was to allow POD modules to provide authorization for,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • features of navigation devices available to subscribers.48 30. In addition to being directly restrained from attaching navigation equipment, consumers must also not be precluded from the possibility of obtaining equipment from commercial outlets by virtue of contractual or other restrictions on the availability of equipment that the service provider might seek to directly impose on suppliers of equipment. The rules (§76.1202) thus additionally enforce the right to attach by precluding contractual or other arrangements, other than those involving equipment performing conditional access or security functions, that prevent navigation devices from being made available to subscribers from retailers, manufacturers, or other vendors that are unaffiliated with that such service provider. 31. The right to attach is supported by numerous commenters.49 CEMA contends
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 76.1200 et seq. See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14776 ¶ 2. 47 U.S.C. § 549. Section 629 was adopted as part of the 1996 Act. 47 U.S.C. § 549(a). See Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14778, 14787 ¶¶ 8, 34; see 47 C.F.R. § 76.1205. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 76.1202. Navigation Devices Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 14775, 14776 ¶ 2. The House Report stated that [C]ompetition in the manufacturing and distribution of consumer devices has always led to innovation, lower prices and higher quality. Clearly, consumers will benefit from having more choices among telecommunications subscription services arriving by various distribution services. H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Notices/fcc00137.txt
  • at developing a new generation of interoperable set-top boxes that will facilitate the provision of an expanded range of interactive services to cable customers. See http://www.opencable.com. See, e.g., ``OpenCable POD Copy Protection System,'' IS-POD-CP-INT01-000107, at 2. See 47 U.S.C. §544a(a)(4). See 47 U.S.C. 544a(c) 2)(D). See also H.R. Rep.No. 104-458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (170-71) 1996. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§76.1202, 1204. See Letter from Robert S. Schwartz to Magalie R. Salas, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 2, 2000), in CS Docket No. 97-80. See Letter from Richard R. Green to Magalie R. Salas, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary (Feb. 16, 2000), in CS Docket No. 97-80. Id. We note that this Notice only addresses cable
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental LOI"). The Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by Cox of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Supplemental LOI at n. 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Second Supplemental LOI"). This LOI sought information relating to possible violations of Section 76.640 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI"). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Divison, Enforcment Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Aug. 25, 2008) ("Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI"). The Aug. 25 Supplemental LOI noted that the investigation now included possible violations by TWC of Sections 76.1201 and 76.1202 of the Rules. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.1201, 76.1202. Id., at note 3. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel for TWC, (Oct. 3, 2008) ("Oct. 3 Supplemental LOI"). See Letter from Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • [143]76.990 Small cable operators. Subpart O -- Competitive Access to Cable Programming [144]76.1000 Definitions. [145]76.1001 Unfair practices generally. [146]76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. [147]76.1003 Program access proceedings. [148]76.1004 Applicability of program access 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • O-Competitive Access to Cable Programming § 76.1000 Definitions. § 76.1001 Unfair practices generally. § 76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. § 76.1003 Program access proceedings. § 76.1004 Applicability of program access rules to common carriers and affiliates. §§ 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