********************************************************    
                           NOTICE
  ********************************************************
  
  This document was converted from
  WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
  
  Content from the original version of the document such as
  headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
  will not show up in this text version.
  
  All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
  original document will not show up in this text version.
  
  Features of the original document layout such as
  columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
  will not be preserved in the text version.
  
  If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
  
  *****************************************************************
                                     Before the
                         Federal Communications Commission
                             Washington, D.C. 20554
  
  In the Matter of:                    )
                                        )
                                        )
  Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer      )          CS Docket No. 00-2
  Improvement Act of 1999:              )
                                        )
  Application of Network Nonduplication,       )
  Syndicated Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout       )
  Rules To Satellite Retransmissions      )
  
  
  
               NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
                              
  
  Adopted:  January 5, 2000                                                             Released:  January 7, 2000
  
  Comment Date:  February 7, 2000 
                                     Reply Comment Date:  February 28, 2000
  
  By the Commission:
  
       I.   Introduction
  
             1.       In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice"), we seek comment on our
  implementation of certain aspects of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 ("SHVIA"),
  which was enacted on November 29, 1999. This act authorizes satellite carriers to add more local and
  national broadcast programming to their offerings, and to make that programming available to some
  subscribers who previously have been prohibited from receiving broadcast programming via satellite. 
  The legislation generally seeks to place satellite carriers on an equal footing with cable operators with
  respect to the availability of broadcast programming.  By this Notice we seek comment on the adoption
  of implementing regulations that apply network nonduplication, syndicated program exclusivity, and
  sports blackout requirements to satellite carriers.  
  
             2.       Section 1008 of the SHVIA creates a new Section 339 of the Communications Act
  of 1934 ("Communications Act") entitled "Carriage of Distant Television Stations by Satellite
  Carriers."   Section 339(b) directs the Commission to apply these three rules (i.e., network
  nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout), previously applicable only to cable
  television systems, to satellite carriers' retransmission of nationally distributed superstations to
  subscribers.  The Commission must also apply the cable sports blackout rule to satellite carriers'
  retransmission of network stations to subscribers, but only "to the extent technically feasible and not
  economically prohibitive." This proceeding will consider how best to apply these rules to satellite
  carriers consistent with the statutory requirements and the Commission's goal of facilitating
  competition in the multichannel video programming distribution marketplace.  
  
             3.       The complexity of both the statutory provisions and the existing cable rules that we
  are charged with applying in this new context requires that we include an explanation of the existing
  network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout rules as they apply to cable
  operators.  We seek here to minimize the likelihood of confusion in the future by assuring that we begin
  with a common understanding of the rules and terminology. These rules have been in existence for 25
  years, and the nuances attendant to enforcement and compliance require some explication to provide
  a solid foundation from which to build a new set of rules to apply to satellite carriers.  This is
  particularly important given that Congress has asked us to implement these new rules so that they will
  be "as similar as possible" to the rules applicable to cable operators.  Our goal throughout this
  proceeding is to develop regulations that will be as clear and easy to follow as possible.  Our purpose
  in laying out the cable rules here is so that the newly covered satellite carriers and other parties will
  have an understanding of the existing rules for the preparation of their comments in this proceeding. 
  Likewise, it is important to describe in some detail the interpretation of the statute upon which we will
  base our rulemaking.  We seek comment on these explanations and interpretations.
  
  
  II.  Statutory Provisions AND INTERPRETATIONS
        
             4.       The first statutory provision discussed below, Section 339(b)(1)(A), requires
  application of three cable rules, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout,
  to satellite retransmission of nationally distributed superstations.  The second statutory provision,
  Section 339(b)(1)(B), applies one of these cable rules, sports blackout, to satellite retransmission of
  network stations.  As discussed below, one important distinction between these provisions is that
  nationally distributed superstations may be retransmitted to both served and unserved households, but
  network stations may only be retransmitted to unserved households. 
  
             5.       The Commission rules in question here, as applied in the cable context, generally
  protect exclusive contractual rights that have been negotiated between broadcasters and program
  providers or other rights holders.  These exclusive contractual rights are potentially threatened by cable
  systems that are capable of retransmitting programming from distant sources beyond the control of the
  contracting parties.  The Commission's network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports
  blackout rules provide that specific programs must be deleted from distant signals delivered to cable
  subscribers if the programs are subject to exclusive contracts to local stations or, in the context of
  sporting events, if carriage from distant stations would violate sports blackout arrangements to protect
  gate receipts in the local market.  To determine how best to apply these cable rules in the satellite
  context, it is first necessary to understand the underlying statutory scheme.  To that end, we first
  discuss the relevant provisions of the SHVIA statute and our interpretations of these provisions. 
  
            A.   Section 339(b)(1)(A): Application of Network Nonduplication, Syndicated
            Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout to Retransmission of Nationally Distributed
            Superstations
  
             6.       Section 339(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act requires the Commission "to apply
  network nonduplication protection (47 CFR 76.92), syndicated exclusivity protection (47 CFR
  76.151), and sports blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to the retransmission of the signals of
  nationally distributed superstations by satellite carriers to subscribers."  For these purposes, a
  "nationally distributed superstation" is a term that is defined as a television broadcast station, licensed
  by the Commission, that meets the following three criteria:
  
            (A)  is not owned or operated by or affiliated with a television network that, as of January
            1, 1995, offered interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more
            hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States;
            (B)  on May 1, 1991, was retransmitted by a satellite carrier and was not a network
            station at that time; and
            (C)  was, as of July 1, 1998, retransmitted by a satellite carrier under the statutory license
            of section 119 of title 17, United States Code.
  
  It appears that the television broadcast stations that meet the foregoing criteria are limited to KTLA-
  TV (Los Angeles), WPIX-TV (New York), KWGN-TV (Denver), WSBK-TV (Boston), WWOR-TV
  (New York) and WGN-TV (Chicago).  We do not believe that any other station could meet these
  criteria in the future due to the date-specific conditions set forth in the definition.  We believe this is,
  therefore, a finite list of the nationally distributed superstations covered by the statute, but we invite
  comment on this issue.  We also note that the statutory definitions of network station, television
  network, and television broadcast station generally contemplate entities within the United States.  We
  seek comment on the relevance of this issue in this proceeding.  Are stations based in foreign countries
  affected by the SHVIA provisions requiring application of the cable exclusivity and sports blackout
  rules to satellite retransmissions?
  
             7.       A nationally distributed superstation is a type of "superstation," which is defined in
  the Copyright Act of 1947, as amended ("Copyright Act"), as "a television broadcast station, other
  than a network station, licensed by the Federal Communications Commission that is secondarily
  transmitted by a satellite carrier."  By creating this special category known as nationally distributed
  superstations, Congress permits satellite carriers to retransmit these superstations to subscribers
  regardless of whether they are "served" or "unserved" pursuant to the Copyright Act.  Congress
  achieved this result by amending the Section 119 compulsory copyright license in the Copyright Act. 
  The amended copyright provision provides that the retransmission of nationally distributed
  superstations to subscribers who do not reside in "unserved households" shall not violate the
  compulsory copyright license.  While Section 1005(b) of the SHVIA does not refer to nationally
  distributed superstations expressly, the criteria for its application are identical to those contained in
  the definition of a nationally distributed superstation.  Thus, we believe that based on Section 1005(b),
  there is no geographic restriction on the retransmission of "nationally distributed superstations"
  pursuant to the compulsory copyright license.  
  
             8.       In addition to amending the Copyright Act, Section 1009 of the SHVIA amends the
  retransmission consent section of the Communications Act, which generally prohibits multichannel
  video programming distributors from retransmitting the signals of a broadcaster absent the
  broadcaster's written authorization.  The SHVIA exemption allows a satellite carrier to retransmit
  the signal of a superstation in the absence of written consent from the superstation if: (i) the station
  was a superstation on May 1, 1991, and (ii) the station was retransmitted by the satellite carrier as of
  July 1, 1998, provided the satellite carrier complies with the Commission's nonduplication, syndicated
  exclusivity, and sports black out rules.  This provision differs slightly from the definition of a
  nationally distributed superstation in that it does not specify that the superstation must not be affiliated
  with a network that existed as such as of January 1, 1995.  At this time, this distinction is without
  practical significance because the six television stations cited above meet the relevant criteria of either
  definition, and there are no additional stations that are included or excluded by operation of this third
  criterion.  Taking all these provisions together, we believe that, pursuant to these new statutory
  provisions in the Copyright Act and the Communications Act, satellite carriers are permitted to
  retransmit the signals of the nationally distributed superstations covered by Section 339(b)(1)(A) to
  both served and unserved households without the station's consent and without geographic
  restriction.
  
             9.       We believe that Congress' purpose in applying the network nonduplication, syndicated
  exclusivity, and sports blackout rules to these satellite retransmissions reflects a balance between
  providing access to national programming carried by the superstation and a recognition that, in the
  absence of retransmission consent requirements, broadcasters and rights holders will have no
  opportunity to protect their contractual rights.  We also believe Congress is seeking to create parity
  between the regulations covering satellite carriers and cable operators.  We seek comment on this
  interpretation of the operation and underlying intent of the statutory requirements. 
  
  
            B.   Section 339(b)(1)(B): Application of the Sports Blackout Rule to Retransmission of
            Network Stations
  
             10.      In addition to applying the existing cable rules to nationally distributed superstations,
  Section 339(b)(1)(B) requires the Commission to "apply sports blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67)
  to the retransmission of the signals of network stations by satellite carriers to subscribers" "to the
  extent technically feasible and not economically prohibitive."   By its terms, Section 339(b)(1)(B)
  applies only to "network stations," which are, generally, television broadcast stations owned or
  operated by, or affiliated with, one or more of the television networks.  Affiliates of these networks
  are the only entities that meet the definition of a television network station contained in the Copyright
  Act and are the only stations covered by Section 339(b)(1)(B).  We note that in the cable context,
  the Commission's sports blackout rule applies to any television broadcast station and is not limited to
  network stations.  We seek comment on whether the cable rules are indeed broader in scope than
  Section 339(b)(1)(B).  
  
             11.      We also observe that the title of new Section 339, "Carriage of Distant Television
  Stations by Satellite Carriers," suggests that this section is intended to apply to satellite retransmission
  of distant network stations, notwithstanding that the text of Section 339(b)(1) does not specifically so
  state.  We seek comment on this interpretation, which is relevant to determining which satellite
  retransmissions are covered by this section of the statute. 
  
  
  III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT 
       
             12.      In general, under the new statutory provisions, the network nonduplication, syndicated
  exclusivity, and sports blackout rules will apply when a satellite carrier retransmits a nationally
  distributed superstation to a household within a local broadcaster's zone of protection, and the
  nationally distributed superstation carries a program to which the local station has exclusive rights. 
  In these cases, the television broadcast station holding exclusive rights may require the satellite carrier
  to blackout these particular programs for the satellite subscriber households within the protected zone.
  We seek comment generally on the appropriate manner in which to implement the provisions of Section
  339(b)(1) of the Communications Act.  In particular, we seek comment on whether the amended
  provisions should be incorporated into existing Sections 76.67, 76.92, and 76.151 of the Commission's
  rules, or whether we should adopt new separate rules for satellite carriers.
  
  a.   Network Nonduplication  Rule
       
             13.      The Commission's cable television network nonduplication rule allows a  television
  broadcast station that has purchased exclusive rights to network programming within a specified area
  to protect its exclusivity on local cable systems.  The rules allow a local television broadcast station
  to demand that a local cable system's duplicate carriage of the same program from an otherwise distant
  station be blacked out. A station may assert its exclusivity rights regardless of whether its signal is
  carried by the cable system in question.   These rules are not statutorily mandated.  They arose from
  the Commission's recognition in the 1970s and 1980s that protection of exclusive contractual rights
  is necessary both to protect local broadcasters from the importation of non-local stations by cable
  systems and to provide appropriate protections and incentives to program producers and distributors
  to provide the programming desired by viewers.
  
             14.      Under the network nonduplication rule, a television station is entitled to assert its
  exclusivity rights against a cable system serving any "cable community unit" within its "specified
  zone" that is carrying duplicative programming for which the local station has obtained exclusive
  distribution rights. The rule applies on a community unit basis by requiring the cable system for a
  particular community unit to black out a specific program based on the priorities established in the
  rule.  The "specified zone" of a television broadcast station is the 35 mile area surrounding its
  community of license.  The zone of exclusivity protection for television stations licensed to smaller
  television markets extends an additional 20 miles, for a total 55 miles surrounding a smaller television
  station's community of license.  We seek comment on whether Congress intended to retain the same
  geographic zones for satellite carriers as those used in the cable context.
  
             15.      While the Commission's rules allow television stations to assert their nonduplication
  rights within the above territorial limits, a television station's rights within these areas are limited by
  the terms of the contractual agreement between the station and the holder of the rights to the program
  ("rights holder").  Thus, if the rights holder grants the television station a zone of protection of ten
  miles, then that station would be precluded from exercising its nonduplication rights against any cable
  system located more than ten miles from that station's city of license.  In addition, for local
  programming to be protected, the local programming must be the same as the distant programming that
  is being imported into a local station's market.  
  
             16.      In order to exercise nonduplication protection, a television broadcast station must
  notify cable operators of the rights they have obtained within 60 days of the signing of a contract
  affording exclusive rights.  In adopting these rules, the Commission recognized that affected cable
  operators would need sufficient time to negotiate for the lifting of the requested protection or to arrange
  for alternative sources of programming to fill the void left when a station exercised its rights.  In this
  regard, television stations have been required to disclose the exact contractual terms under which they
  have been granted exclusivity protection.  We seek comment on how the notification process
  described in the network nonduplication rule can be applied to satellite carriers and on whether the 60
  day period and the other notification periods used in the cable context are appropriate for satellite
  carriers.
  
             17.      There are several exceptions to application of the network nonduplication rule. First,
  the network nonduplication rule is inapplicable to any non-commercial educational ("NCE") station
  programming carried in fulfillment of a cable system's mandatory carriage rules.  Second, because
  of the cost of the equipment necessary to carry out deletions, the Commission exempted cable systems
  having fewer than 1,000 subscribers.  
  
             18.      The rule also does not apply if the distant station's signal is "significantly viewed" in
  a relevant cable system community.  The concept of significant viewing is directly related to whether
  an otherwise distant station's broadcast signal is viewable over-the-air in a cable community unit.  The
  significantly viewed exception to the exclusivity rules is meant to insure that any programming that
  is available terrestrially in a community from an over-the-air station will not be blacked out on a
  community's cable system.  We seek comment on the relevance in the satellite context of the
  exception for significantly viewed stations. Are there situations in which a nationally distributed
  superstation from an adjacent market could be significantly viewed within the relevant specified zone
  based on terrestrial transmission?  We believe a nationally distributed superstation could only qualify
  as significantly viewed based on terrestrial broadcast reception over-the-air in the areas surrounding
  its city of license,  thus limiting the relevance of this exception to those circumstances in which the
  superstation is actually functioning as a local station, and therefore, arguably, not covered by the terms
  of Section 339(b)(1)(A). 
       
             19.      Under the cable network nonduplication rules, if the cable community unit is located
  in one or more overlapping specified zones, neither station can blackout the other station's duplicating
  programming because both stations have equal priorities.  We do not believe a similar situation could
  occur in the satellite carrier context because superstations, as such, do not have specified zones outside
  of the markets from which they originate, and, under the new statutory requirement, network
  nonduplication applies only to the retransmission of nationally distributed superstations and not to
  retransmission of network stations.  We seek comment on this issue. 
  
  B.   Syndicated Program Exclusivity Rule
  
             20.      The Commission's syndicated program exclusivity rule allows local stations to protect
  their exclusive distribution rights for syndicated programming on local cable systems in a local
  market.  This rule is similar in operation to the network nonduplication rule, but it applies to
  exclusive contracts for syndicated programming, rather than for network programming.  In this rule,
  too, a local television station is entitled to assert its exclusivity rights within a specified zone of  35
  miles surrounding a television station's city of license. Unlike the network nonduplication rule,
  however, the maximum zone of protection allowed under the rules is 35 miles surrounding a television
  station's city of license in a non-hyphenated television market and 35 miles surrounding each named
  city in any size hyphenated market; the zone of protection is not greater in smaller markets.
  
             21.      As with network nonduplication, the syndicated exclusivity rule applies on a
  community unit basis by requiring the cable system for a particular community unit to black out a
  specific program based on the priorities established in the rule.  In addition, the geographic limits for
  exclusivity under the Commission's rules are limited by the terms of the contractual agreement
  between the station and the holder of the rights to the program.  Thus, if the rights holder grants the
  television station a zone of protection of ten miles, then that station would be precluded from exercising
  its exclusivity rights against any cable system located more than ten miles from that station's city of
  license.  In addition, as with the network nonduplication rules, for syndicated programming to be
  protected, the programming covered by the contract must be the same as the distant programming.
       
             22.      To exercise syndicated exclusivity protection under the cable rule, a television
  broadcast station must notify cable operators of the rights they have obtained within 60 days of the
  signing of a contract affording exclusivity rights, and must disclose the exact contractual terms under
  which they have been granted exclusivity protection. In addition to the television broadcast station,
  distributors of syndicated programming are also allowed to seek protection for a period of one year
  from the initial licensing of such programming anywhere in the United States, except where the
  relevant programming has already been licensed.  We seek comment on whether the rights holder
  should, in the satellite context, notify the satellite carrier directly.  We also seek comment on whether
  the 60 day period and the other notification periods used in the cable context for both network
  nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity are appropriate for satellite carriers.
  
             23.      The exceptions to application of the syndicated program exclusivity rule are similar
  to those that apply to the network nonduplication rule.  Cable systems with fewer than 1,000
  subscribers are exempted, again because of the cost of the equipment necessary to carry out
  deletions.  This rule also does not apply if the distant station's signal is "significantly viewed" in a
  relevant cable system community.  In addition, the syndicated programming of an otherwise distant station
  need not be blacked out if that station's grade B signal encompasses the relevant cable community.  There
  is no exception to the syndicated exclusivity rules for NCE station programming carried pursuant to
  mandatory carriage because the syndicated exclusivity rule applies only to commercial stations. 
  
  
  C.   Sports Blackout Rule
  
             24.      The Commission's sports broadcasts rule ("sports blackout rule") is designed to allow
  the holder of the exclusive distribution rights to local programming, in this case sporting events, to
  control, through contractual agreements, the display of that event on local cable systems.  Unlike the
  other cable rules we are required to apply to satellite carriers, only the sports blackout rule applies to
  retransmission of both nationally distributed superstations and network stations.  The purpose of the
  sports blackout rule is to insure the continued general availability of sports programming to the public. 
  The Commission adopted this rule based on a concern that sports teams would refuse to sell the rights
  to their local games to television stations serving distant markets due to their fear of losing gate
  receipts if the local cable system imported the local sporting event carried on the distant station.  The
  Commission stated this would have the ultimate undesirable effect of making sporting events available
  to fewer viewers.  When a subject sporting event will not be aired live by any local television station
  carried on a community unit cable system,  the sports blackout rule allows the rights holder to the
  event to demand that the local cable system blackout the distant importation of the subject sporting
  event.  The zone of protection afforded by the sports blackout rule is generally 35 miles surrounding
  the reference point of the broadcast station's community of license in which the live sporting event is
  taking place. As with the Commission's exclusivity rules, the sports blackout rule specifies
  notification procedures regarding the sports programming to be deleted.  However, the time frame
  allowed for notification is significantly shorter in the case of the sports blackout rule, and can be as
  little as 24 hours in contrast to 60 days for the other rules.  We seek comment on whether the same
  timing should apply for both cable operators and satellite carriers.
  
             25.      As with the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, the sports
  blackout rule does not apply to cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers.  This exemption
  is based on the cost of the equipment needed to delete programming.  We seek comment on whether
  there is an analogous situation for satellite carriers.  Will there be situations in which there may be no
  more than 1,000 subscribers in an area subject to program blackout, and, if so, is there a significant
  cost to blacking out this limited number of subscribers? We seek specific information from satellite
  carriers on the likelihood of the occurrence of this situation. We seek comment on these questions with
  respect to the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, as well as the sports blackout
  rule. We particularly seek specific information from satellite carriers on the comparative costs per
  subscriber of deleting programming where more than or less than 1,000 subscriber households are
  affected.
  
             26.      As noted, the sports blackout rule for cable systems applies only in a limited 35 mile
  geographic area surrounding the relevant broadcast station's community reference point and only when
  no local television station is carrying the event.  Typically this area contains households that can
  receive a signal of Grade B intensity or better.  Because the Section 119 compulsory copyright license
  only allows the retransmission of distant network stations to unserved households, i.e. those that
  cannot receive a signal of Grade B intensity, and because the existing sports blackout zone is typically
  limited to an area containing only served households, we expect that there would be few occasions
  where a subscriber residing within a sports blackout zone would be eligible to receive protected
  programming via distant network retransmissions made pursuant to the Section 119 compulsory
  copyright license.  Thus, there may be very few occasions where, as a practical matter, the sports
  blackout rule could be invoked for a satellite retransmission of network stations. It may, however,
  present technical and economic challenges to the satellite carrier to take the actions necessary to
  blackout out the sports broadcast in these comparatively few situations. We seek comment on this
  issue.
  
             27.      The SHVIA's directive to apply the network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity,
  and sports blackout rules to satellite retransmission of nationally distributed superstations appears to
  apply without any limitation based upon a satellite carrier's technical ability to comply.  The SHVIA,
  however, limits application of the sports blackout rule to retransmission of network stations "to the
  extent technically feasible and not economically prohibitive."  The legislative history suggests that
  a "very serious economic threat to the health of the carrier" is necessary to justify deviating from the
  cable rules.  We seek comment concerning the circumstances in which the sports blackout rule should
  apply in the satellite context, on whether the 35 mile zone is appropriate in the satellite context, and,
  particularly, on the technical and economic consequences related to satellite carriers' compliance with
  the rule. 
  
             28.      We note that satellite carriers routinely provide pay-per-view events and descramble
  programming by use of "conditional access" mechanisms.  With regard to the question of technical and
  economic effects on the satellite carrier, we ask whether conditional access mechanisms can be used
  to blackout sports programming on network stations.  If the satellite provider can identify the
  households required to be blacked out for a specific sporting event, would conditional access provide
  the means to initiate the blackout?  How much lead time would a satellite carrier need if conditional
  access can meet this requirement?  What would the cost be per subscriber to implement sports
  blackout, as compared to the other exclusivity rules discussed above, using conditional access? 
  Commenters are asked to address consideration of both the economic and technical considerations
  facing satellite carriers.
  
             29.      Under the new Section 122 of the Copyright Act, a satellite carrier may retransmit
  the signal of a network station to all subscribers within that station's local market, which is defined
  as its Designated Market Area ("DMA").  It is possible that in areas in which there are two affiliates
  of the same network within the same DMA, a "served" subscriber would be eligible to receive both
  network stations based on the satellite carrier's "local-into-local" license because the subscriber resides
  in the DMA of the second station.  The geographic area for purposes of the sports blackout zone
  surrounding one of the affiliates is most often smaller than the DMA.  If one of the affiliates is not
  carrying the event, the sports blackout rule can be triggered.  If the second affiliate is carrying the
  event, then the satellite carrier might be required to blackout the event being transmitted by the second
  affiliate to subscribers within the 35 mile zone.  Alternatively, this situation may never occur if, as a
  practical matter, the contractual arrangements allow the rights holder to prohibit both affiliates from
  broadcasting the event in question.  We seek comment on whether the two-affiliates-in-one market
  scenario is likely to occur, and whether the rules should treat this situation differently from the
  retransmission of a distant network station.
  
  
  IV.  Additional Discussion and request for comment
  
             30.      We also seek comment, generally, on how to apply the terms of the three existing
  cable rules to satellite carriers.  As discussed above, the cable rules refer to "community units," which
  correspond to separate and discrete communities or municipal entities that comprise cable systems. 
  In the cable context, all cable subscribers who are in a community unit that lies in whole or in part
  within the specified zone experience program  deletions if the program is covered by one of these rules. 
  There are, however, no boundaries for satellite service that readily and necessarily correspond to the
  cable community unit.  Is it necessary to administer these rules in the satellite context using the same
  community unit concept that applies in the cable context?   Or, is it more appropriate to consider
  each household served by the satellite carrier and determine if it is within a broadcaster's specified
  zone for protection under the rules?  In either case, the satellite carrier must be able to determine the
  location of each subscriber in relation to the relevant zone of protection for each local broadcast
  television station.  How can a satellite carrier accurately locate a subscriber whose address is a post
  office box or rural route number?  Is it appropriate to use the subscriber's zip code for this purpose? 
  We seek comment on which approach best serves the purposes of the statute while not unnecessarily
  depriving satellite subscribers who are beyond the specified zone   but within a community unit that
  lies partially within the specified zone   of programming. We also seek comment on how the use of
  DMA in the SHVIA to define the local market applies to determination of the specified zone for
  purposes of the nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout rules in the satellite context.
  
             31.      The syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout rules make specific provision for what type
  of programming a cable system may substitute for  programming deleted pursuant to these rules.  For
  example, when a program is blacked out based on syndicated rights, a cable operator may substitute a
  program from any other television broadcast station and carry that program.  We seek comment on what
  types of programming and methods of substitution are appropriate for satellite carriers.  What role do
  retransmission consent requirements, as well as copyright licensing requirements, play in determination of
  substitute programming?
  
             32.      Congress apparently chose not to extend application of the network nonduplication
  and syndicated exclusivity rules to retransmission of television broadcast stations other than nationally
  distributed superstations.  We believe that the statutory requirements, nevertheless, will protect all
  contractual arrangements because the satellite carrier either needs the retransmission consent of the
  independent station or voluntarily complies with the exclusivity and sports blackout rules.  We
  believe, therefore, that the interests of rights holders and local broadcasters are protected, but we seek
  comment on this issue.
  
             33.      It has been suggested that the Commission consider certain additional issues
  concerning the distribution of sports programming that are related to, but not directly covered by, the
  SHVIA.  The National Football League sells packages of programming to networks on a national
  basis, but different games are broadcast locally on a regional basis, often in two-game packages.  To
  the extent that broadcasts of games are carried into local markets on distant broadcast signals via
  satellite, the network nonduplication and other rules involved in this proceeding appear to offer neither
  the stations nor the leagues involved any protection beyond the rights to the particular games that local
  stations are authorized to broadcast.    In light of the SHVIA's restrictions on households that are
  eligible to receive distant network signals, it is not clear to what extent carriage of distant signals
  providing different games merits remedial action.  We seek comment on the question of how the
  patterns of sports carriage involved are addressed by the new law, and whether they can and should
  be addressed in the regulations the Commission is required to adopt pursuant to it.
  
             34.      We note, too, that WPIX, KTLA, and KWGN are WB affiliates and WSBK and
  WWOR are UPN affiliates; thus all are both "network stations" as well as "nationally distributed
  superstations," pursuant to the definitions in the SHVIA.  Should the exclusivity rules apply to
  blackout programming on a local station if that station is also a nationally distributed superstation or
  should the station be treated only as a local station within its local market, notwithstanding that it is
  a nationally distributed superstation outside its market?  We note by way of analogy that, in the
  context of mandatory cable carriage, we have concluded that local commercial stations do not become
  superstations until such time as they are retransmitted via satellite outside their market, an activity
  unrelated to their status as local commercial broadcast stations within their market.  We seek
  comment on the applicability of that conclusion in the satellite context.
  
             35.      In addition, if we decide that it is necessary for the satellite carrier rules for sports
  blackout protection for network stations to differ from sports blackout protection for nationally
  distributed superstations due to technical feasibility and economic prohibitions, we seek comment on
  whether the sports blackout protection for these stations should apply to them as superstations, rather
  than as network stations.
  
             36.      Section 339(b)(1) and the relevant part of the Joint Explanatory Statement are silent
  regarding application of the exclusivity and sports blackout rules to the retransmission of digital
  broadcast signals. In the pending proceeding considering cable mandatory carriage of digital signals,
  we requested comment on how these cable rules would function for cable carriage of digital signals. 
  Similarly here, we question whether Congress intended to apply these rules to satellite retransmission
  of digital broadcast signals.  We note that the SHVIA can be read as applying to both analog and
  digital broadcast signals.  An alternative interpretation is that Congress was only concerned about the
  carriage of analog signals given that elsewhere in the statute Congress expressly mentioned digital
  signals and, presumably, could have done so in this context as well.  We seek comment on whether
  and how the exclusivity rules could apply to satellite carriage of digital broadcast signals, and whether
  there is a meaningful distinction between analog and digital carriage issues for satellite carriers in this
  context.
  
             37.      As a final matter, we note that several sections of the existing cable rules contain
  outdated cross-references to other sections of the rules.  We will take this opportunity to correct these
  references.  These proposed revisions are listed in Appendix C.  We welcome comment on these and
  any other such corrections that are needed.  For example, Section 76.67 contains a reference to Section
  76.5(gg) for purposes of identifying the broadcast television stations that trigger the rule's application. 
  Section 76.5(gg) has been eliminated.  We seek comment on whether we should reinstate a standard
  based upon the original criteria incorporated into Section 76.5(gg) or adopt a new standard.   In
  addition, we welcome comment on changes to the application of the rules in the cable context to the
  extent necessary or desirable for harmonizing the regulatory requirements among the affected parties.
  
  
  1    Administrative Matters
  
            A.   Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement and Paperwork Reduction Act
            Statement
  
             2.       The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is attached to this order as Appendix D.  
  This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection.  As part of its continuing
  effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and
  Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this
  Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  Public and agency
  comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days
  from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.  Comments should address: (a) whether
  the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
  Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
  Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
  collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
  including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
       
            B.   Ex Parte Rules
  
             3.       This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding subject to the
  "permit-but-disclose" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules.  47 C.F.R. 1.1206(b), as
  revised.  Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules,
  except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally
  prohibited.  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing
  a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing
  of the subjects discussed.  More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
  presented is generally required.  See 47 C.F.R. 1.1206(b)(2), as revised.  Additional rules pertaining
  to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).
  
  
  C.   Filing of Comments and Reply Comments
  
             4.       Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
  Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments in response
  to this Notice on or before February 7, 2000 and reply comments on or before February 28, 2000. 
  Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") or by
  filing paper copies.  Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
  Internet to <http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html>.  Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission
  must be filed.   If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding,
  however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking
  number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
  their full name, Postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. 
  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.  To get filing instructions for e-mail
  comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words
  in the body of the message, "get form<your e-mail address."  A sample form and directions will be sent
  in reply.
  
             5.       Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. 
  If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus
  nine copies must be filed.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this
  proceeding commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
  number.  All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the
  Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 
  The Cable Services Bureau contact for this proceeding is Eloise Gore at (202) 418-7200, TTY (202)
  418-7172, or at egore@fcc.gov.
  
             6.       Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. 
    Parties should submit diskettes to Eloise Gore, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street N.W., Room
  4-A802, Washington, D.C. 20554.  Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in
  an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and Microsoft Word, or compatible software.  The
  diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode.  The
  diskette should be clearly labeled with the party's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number
  in this case [CS Docket No. 00-2]), type of pleading (comments or reply comments), date of
  submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette.  The label should also include the
  following phrase "Disk Copy - Not an Original."  Each diskette should contain only one party's
  pleadings, referable in a single electronic file.  In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to
  the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street, N.W.,
  Washington, D.C. 20036.  
  
             7.       Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
  collections are due [February 7, 2000].  Written comments must be submitted by the Office of
  Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before
  [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.]  In addition to filing comments with the
  Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be
  submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW,
  Washington, DC  20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk
  Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to
  vhuth@omb.eop.gov.
  
  
  1    ORDERING CLAUSES
  
             2.       Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 1008 of the Satellite Home
  Viewer Act of 1999, Section 339(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, NOTICE
  IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposals described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
  
             3.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
  Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
  including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
  Business Administration.                
  
                           Federal Communications Commission
  
  
                           Magalie Roman Salas
                           Secretary