FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFI C E O F THE C HAIRM A N The Honorable Brenda Lawrence U.S. House ofRepresentatives 1237 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Lawrence: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range ofviewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Brenda Lawrence however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks. 55 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 55 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSoWhite, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable Brenda Lawrence You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."56 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 56 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable Brenda Lawrence Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ted Lieu U.S. House ofRepresentatives 415 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Lieu: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter - the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive I examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 -The Honorable Ted Lieu however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks. 57 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration ofprogratmning sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 57 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Conm1ents, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable Ted Lieu You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."58 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 58 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable Ted Lieu Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CH A I RMAN The Honorable Alan Lowenthal U.S. House of Representatives 108 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Lowenthal: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter -the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 -The Honorable Alan Lowenthal however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pe1mies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks. 59 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 59 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality progranuning -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFYme.TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable Alan Lowenthal You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."60 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees mmually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 60 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 -The Honorable Alan Lowenthal Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFF I CE OF THE CHA I RMAN The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks U.S. House ofRepresentatives 2234 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Meeks: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2- The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks. 61 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 61 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority progranm1ers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box irmovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-progranm1ing ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFYme.TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3- The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."62 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. - The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 62 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4- The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Sincere!:/{/ ~#7>:/{-- Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gwen Moore U.S. House of Representatives 2245 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Moore: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range ofviewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident 1t will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 -The Honorable Gwen Moore however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.63 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all ofwhich would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 63 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority progranm1ers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSoWhite, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFYme.TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse progranm1ing from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable Gwen Moore You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been smrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."64 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TV s, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minmity programmers. 64 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4- The Honorable Gwen Moore Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Torn Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives 1610 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Napolitano: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2- The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 chatmels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.65 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all ofwhich would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 65 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority progranuners will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Conunents, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse progranuners. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFYme.TV Conunents, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3- The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."66 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TV s, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 66 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4- The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard E. Neal U.S. House ofRepresentatives 341 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Neal: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One ofthe central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter -the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2- The Honorable Richard E. Neal however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a chmmellike ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.67 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all ofwhich would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 67 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the cun·ent system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSoWhite, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Richard E. Neal You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."68 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 68 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) Page 4 - The Honorable Richard E. Neal Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE C H A I RMAN The Honorable Donald M. Payne U.S. House of Representatives 1 03 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Payne: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter -the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Donald M. Payne however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by ·limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.69 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 69 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse progratmning from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable Donald M. Payne You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."70 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cmmot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 70 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4- The Honorable Donald M. Payne Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFF I CE OF THE CHA I RMAN The Honorable Scott Peters U.S. House of Representatives 1122 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Peters: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter - the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 -The Honorable Scott Peters however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.71 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 71 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box i1111ovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Scott Peters You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system.'m Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority progranuners. 72 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4- The Honorable Scott Peters Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE O F THE CH A IRM A N The Honorable Stacey Plaskett U.S. House of Representatives 509 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Plaskett: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range ofviewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter - the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident 1t will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Stacey Plaskett however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.73 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 73 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Stacey Plaskett You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."74 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 74 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable Stacey Plaskett Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Mike Quigley U.S. House of Representatives 2458 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Quigley: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. · This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Mike Quigley however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with cmmnents from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.75 For the sake ofthese entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration ofprogramming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 75 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 {Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never fmd them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Mike Quigley You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system. "76 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent of today' s pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 76 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 -The Honorable Mike Quigley Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUN ICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON O F FIC E OF T H E CHAIRMAN The Honorable Cedric L. Richmond U.S. House ofRepresentatives 240 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Richmond: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter- the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Cedric L. Richmond however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a cham1ellike ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks. 77 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 77 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and fmally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potentiaL"); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Cedric L. Richmond You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."78 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TVs, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 78 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable Cedric L. Richmond Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN May 23,2016 The Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger U.S. House ofRepresentatives 2416 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Ruppersberger: Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life expenences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter - the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned programming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 -The Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.79 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 79 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, the only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box i1movation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 - The Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. Ifthere is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."80 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TV s, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 80 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Tom Wheeler FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Bobby L. Rush U.S. House ofRepresentatives 2188 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Rush: May 23,2016 Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace. One of the central issues in this proceeding is how competition can support and promote diverse and independent voices in our media landscape. Your engagement and leadership in our proceeding is invaluable and helps further the public discourse on this important issue. This February the Commission put out for public comment a proposal that would fulfill the statutory requirement of competitive choice for consumers. This action opened a fact-finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. The notice-and-comment process, as well as subsequent ex parte communications, will constitute the most complete and thorough examination of this issue ever undertaken or contemplated. Already, the record contains over 104,000 comments representing a broad range of viewpoints and data. This includes both theoretical economic studies, as well as real-life experiences. In order to provide guidance to commenters, we specifically requested information from all sides on the issues you raise in your letter - the impact on all parties in the video marketplace, the impact on content diversity and intellectual property, and the impact on consumer privacy­ as well as many other topics. As you know, the first round of comments on this proposal were filed last month. Responses are due today. However, as with all of our proceedings, we will continue accepting comments, studies and observations for the record well after our formal comment period closes. And, of course, every single one of these pages of comments will be available online for public scrutiny and comment. The ultimate record will no doubt reach multiple of hundreds of thousands of pages of information, which is why I am confident it will be the most extensive examination of the subject ever undertaken. As always, your participation in the record is appreciated. As the video ecosystem evolves it should be creating more opportunities for independent and minority-owned prQgramming. By using the set top box as a way to limit program carriage, Page 2 - The Honorable Bobby L. Rush however, MVPDs constrict opportunities. While the most popular MVPD packages contain 200 to 500 channels, there are currently only two Hispanic-owned and four African-American owned networks. Not only is there limited carriage, but there is also limited financial support. While a channel like ESPN is paid over $7.00 per month per subscriber by MVPDs, minority channels receive pennies. What's more, minority networks are often placed on premium tiers requiring an additional payment from the consumer which also limits potential advertising revenues by limiting potential audience reach. Thus far, our record is replete with comments from minority programmers who have been locked out from carriage on traditional cable networks.81 For the sake of these entrepreneurs and the audiences they hope to reach, we must move forward. Our proposal would provide minority and independent programmers with an equal opportunity to reach their audiences. The proposal would facilitate competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which would provide programmers with a greater ability to find audiences and consumers with a greater ability to access independent and minority programming. For those few independent and minority-owned programmers who already have carriage on the traditional pay-TV system, nothing in the Commission's proposal disrupts existing contractual relationships between programmers and MVPDs. 81 See, e.g., New England Broadband Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 20 16) ("On behalf of the dream that was the Black Education Network and on behalf of all of the other generations of quality programming strangled to demise by a merciless cable system, I enthusiastically applaud the FCC's efforts to unlock the box!"); GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Fortunately, the FCC has the ability to create this opportunity for independent and minority programmers -- but it must act soon before cable operators can set the only gatekeepers to this online video market. We need a path to greater distribution of this content and the way to do this is to have a competitive set top box or no set top box system. Online video minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."); BLQBOX Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41,97-80, at 1-2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("So why should minorities -or anyone else- care about this fight? Because as a battle wages on #OscarsSo White, there are hundreds of thousands of hours of quality programming -documentaries, shorts, lifestyle, indie movies, global movies -that don't fit well within the traditional ad-based TV model and will never make it onto broadcast, cable or even Netflix and Amazon. And for those content creators and the entrepreneurs who want to distribute that work, tl1e only viable market is direct to consumers in the streaming world. But as long as the streaming world is locked out from the mainstream, many audiences will never find them and they will not succeed. Set-top box innovation would open that system."); The Townsend Group Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-90, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unless we eliminate the gatekeeper system, we will forever be just talking about how to improve markets for independent and diverse programmers. The proposed Unlock the Box regulations significantly lower barriers to market entry for diverse and independent programmers. In addition, the proposal represents a positive evolution in our vide-programming ecosystem bringing us closer to the non-gatekeeper system we deserve. I urge the FCC to move deliberately implementing this proposal and finally establishing a cable marketplace that lives up to its potential."); UNIFY me. TV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) ("Unlock the Box gives audiences easy access to diverse programming from streaming services like UNIFY and other content providers who have been shutout from cable outlets. Cable and satellite stations have been gatekeepers who have invariably dismissed so much rich content and deprived audiences from experiences of old and/or new content."). Page 3 -The Honorable Bobby L. Rush You have been thoughtful in identifying the issues that are important to you in this proceeding. I owe you the same courtesy insofar as responding to some of the issues that have been surrounding this topic: • Debra Lee, CEO of BET, recently stated that our proposal would give away "BET programming for free." I can assure you nothing in the proposal would require anyone to give away their content for free. If there is specific language you or Ms. Lee would like to suggest to make that clear, we are interested in seeing this language. • Alfred Liggins, CEO of TV One, commented: "The programming market today is working for content providers seeking to reach consumers, including minority content providers." Comments in the record take the opposite view. For instance, GFNTV submitted comments that "minority programmers will not be able to grow and thrive with the current system."82 Ultimately, the record being developed will answer this question. • There have also been continuing allegations about copyright protections. If copyright can be protected on Smart TV s, iPads and iPhones, there is little reason to expect it cannot similarly be protected on a third party set-top-box or app. We actually incorporated the industry's CableCARD license protections into the proposal since that has been so successful in protecting content for the last 20 years. Again, if there is other language necessary to ensure copyright protections, we are interested in seeing such language. Developing a robust record addressing these issues will ultimately benefit consumers. Ninety-nine percent oftoday's pay TV subscribers lease their set top box. This lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers-on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the American household. Even worse for consumers, these rental fees continue to increase. One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of computers, televisions and mobile phones has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. The record we are developing will help us address the outstanding issues you raise while delivering American consumers meaningful choice, and opening new opportunities for minority programmers. 82 GFNTV Comments, MB Docket Nos. 16-42, 16-41, 97-80, at 2 (Apr. 22, 2016) Page 4 - The Honorable Bobby L. Rush Thank you for your engagement on this important issue. The wisdom inherent in a notice-and-comment proceeding is that there is time for continuing an ongoing dialog. I look forward to such a dialog with you. Sincere~~~~ hN7f/{- Tom Wheeler