FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
O FFIC E OF 
TH E CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Judy Chu 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2423 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congresswoman Chu: 
April19, 2016 
Thank you for your letter regarding the recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 
seeking comment on how to better foster competition in the set-top box marketplace and Section 
629 of the Communications Act. Your views are very important and will be considered as part 
of the Commission' s review. 
I share your admiration for today's television landscape. There is an abundance of rich 
content and new technology. As you point out, technology is paving the way for software and 
apps to help consumers. Consumers deserve a variety of choices to view the programming they 
want, when they want and on the device they want. More choices often drive down consumer 
costs and drive up innovation. 
The issue before the Commission is how to satisfy Section 629 in a world of evolving 
technology. I agree with you that any rules we adopt must reflect marketplace realities, and I 
assure you that is a paramount concern as we consider how to meet the statutory obligation. 
At the February 18th Commission meeting, we adopted a NPRM to fulfill the statutory 
requirement of competitive choice for consumers. Like all NPRMs, this action opens a fact­
fmding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. To the extent that parties 
have concerns about any of the proposals in the NPRM they should submit specific 
recommendations for solutions or adjustments into the record. 
The new proposed rules would create a framework for providing device manufacturers, 
software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new 
technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer 
protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company's ability to package and price its 
programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes. 
The Commission' s proposal ensures the security of content by looking to industry­
standard practices. Specifically, the proposal would require third party device and app 
developers to meet "robustness" requirements, which dictate how resistant a device must be to 
various forms ofhacking, that are set by the content holders, pay-TV providers, and content 
protection system makers themselves. In addition, the proposal would require third party 
devices and apps to honor entitlement information, such as whether a subscriber is entitled to 
Page 2-The Honorable Judy Chu 
access content (e.g., premium channels) and how the subscriber is entitled to use that content 
(e.g., by recording it or watching it on a mobile device), established by the terms of the 
subscriber's pay-TV subscription package. This content security proposal, which was informed 
by the congressionally-mandated report drafted by the technical experts on Downloadable 
Security Technology Advisory Committee, will ensure that all content, including independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming, is sufficiently secure to prevent theft and misuse. 
With respect to your concerns about malware and cybersecurity, the NPRM ask 
commenters to address other aspects of security related to this proceeding and we welcome 
comment on this topic. 
I also share your goal of ensuring this proposal does not adversely affect independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming networks. The proposal would facilitate 
competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which 
would provide customers with a greater ability to access independent, minority-focused, and 
religious programming. With regard to your concerns on channel-placement, the proposal notes 
that there is no evidence of change in channel-positioning under the current CableCARD regime, 
even though nothing in our rules prevents third-party device manufacturers, such as TiVo, from 
making such changes today. However, to ensure we build a complete record, the NPRM invites 
comment on this issue. Our goal is to maintain the opportunity for those content providers 
currently carried by Pay-TV providers, and create new opportunities for those independent 
programmers that cannot reach Pay-TV consumers because they have been locked out of the 
system. 
You express concerns that rules intended to achieve Section 629's mandate could 
diminish the viewing experience and the economic underpinnings that support investment in 
innovative content. The Commission's proposal preserves copyright protections and the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how we should take further actions to address the concerns you 
raise. For instance, the item asks numerous questions about how to protect the rights and 
negotiated agreements of content owners. The item also specifically states that "our regulations 
must ensure that Navigation Devices ... cannot technically disrupt, impede or impair the delivery 
of services to an MVPD subscriber." In this vein, the items asks a number of questions related to 
advertising and copyright concerns raised by content owners. 
You also note the importance of privacy protections for consumers under the new 
framework. Let me assure you that the proposal we adopted seeks to ensure that the privacy 
protections that exist today will also apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 
Today, pay-TV providers abide by privacy obligations under Sections 631 and 338 of the 
Communications Act. These privacy obligations, among other things, prohibit pay-TV providers 
from disclosing to other companies for advertising purposes personally identifiable information 
concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, without the 
subscriber's prior written or electronic consent. The proposal tentatively concludes that third-
Page 3-The Honorable Judy Chu 
party device manufacturers must afford consumers the same level of protection. Specifically, the 
proposal tentatively concludes that manufacturers must certify they are in compliance with the 
same privacy obligations as pay-TV providers. The proposal asks a number of questions about 
how best to enforce such a requirement, including whether an independent entity should validate 
third-party manufacturer's certifications, whether the Commission should maintain the 
certifications, and what the appropriate enforcement mechanism should be if there are any lapses 
in compliance with any certification. 
Additionally, the NPRM notes that today, competitive navigation devices such as TiVo 
must comply with a host of state and federal privacy protections that include various remedies 
for consumers. All of these protections and remedies would continue to apply under the proposal 
in theNPRM. 
I believe the Commission's proposal will lead to innovation that will improve consumer 
choice and options for content providers. As we develop a record and explore fulfilling the 
statutory mandate, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important consumer 
ISSUe. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Doug Collins 
U.S. House of Representatives 
1504 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Collins: 
April19, 2016 
Thank you for your letter regarding the recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 
seeking comment on how to better foster competition in the set-top box marketplace and Section 
629 of the Communications Act. Your views are very important and will be considered as part 
of the Commission's review. 
I share your admiration for today' s television landscape. There is an abundance of rich 
content and new technology. As you point out, technology is paving the way for software and 
apps to help consumers. Consumers deserve a variety of choices to view the programming they 
want, when they want and on the device they want. More choices often drive down consumer 
costs and drive up innovation. 
The issue before the Commission is how to satisfy Section 629 in a world of evolving 
technology. I agree with you that any rules we adopt must reflect marketplace realities, and I 
assure you that is a paramount concern as we consider how to meet the statutory obligation. 
At the February 18th Commission meeting, we adopted a NPRM to fulfill the statutory 
requirement of competitive choice for consumers. Like all NPRMs, this action opens a fact­
fmding dialog to build a record upon which to base any fmal decision. To the extent that parties 
have concerns about any of the proposals in the NPRM they should submit specific 
recommendations for solutions or adjustments into the record. 
The new proposed rules would create a framework for providing device manufacturers, 
software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new 
technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer 
protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company' s ability to package and price its 
programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes. 
The Commission' s proposal ensures the security of content by looking to industry­
standard practices. Specifically, the proposal would require third party device and app 
developers to meet "robustness" requirements, which dictate how resistant a device must be to 
various forms of hacking, that are set by the content holders, pay-TV providers, and content 
protection system makers themselves. In addition, the proposal would require third party 
devices and apps to honor entitlement information, such as whether a subscriber is entitled to 
Page 2-The Honorable Doug Collins 
access content (e.g., premium channels) and how the subscriber is entitled to use that content 
(e.g., by recording it or watching it on a mobile device), established by the terms of the 
subscriber's pay-TV subscription package. This content security proposal, which was informed 
by the congressionally-mandated report drafted by the technical experts on Downloadable 
Security Technology Advisory Committee, will ensure that all content, including independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming, is sufficiently secure to prevent theft and misuse. 
With respect to your concerns about malware and cybersecurity, the NPRM ask 
commenters to address other aspects of security related to this proceeding and we welcome 
comment on this topic. 
I also share your goal of ensuring this proposal does not adversely affect independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming networks. The proposal would facilitate 
competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which 
would provide customers with a greater ability to access independent, minority-focused, and 
religious programming. With regard to your concerns on channel-placement, the proposal notes 
that there is no evidence of change in channel-positioning under the current CableCARD regime, 
even though nothing in our rules prevents third-party device manufacturers, such as TiVo, from 
making such changes today. However, to ensure we build a complete record, the NPRM invites 
comment on this issue. Our goal is to maintain the opportunity for those content providers 
currently carried by Pay-TV providers, and create new opportunities for those independent 
programmers that cannot reach Pay-TV consumers because they have been locked out of the 
system. 
You express concerns that rules intended to achieve Section 629's mandate could 
diminish the viewing experience and the economic underpinnings that support investment in 
innovative content. The Commission's proposal preserves copyright protections and the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how we should take further actions to address the concerns you 
raise. For instance, the item asks numerous questions about how to protect the rights and 
negotiated agreements of content owners. The item also specifically states that "our regulations 
must ensure that Navigation Devices ... cannot technically disrupt, impede or impair the delivery 
of services to an MVPD subscriber." In this vein, the items asks a number of questions related to 
advertising and copyright concerns raised by content owners. 
You also note the importance of privacy protections for consumers under the new 
framework. Let me assure you that the proposal we adopted seeks to ensure that the privacy 
protections that exist today will also apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 
Today, pay-TV providers abide by privacy obligations under Sections 631 and 338 of the 
Communications Act. These privacy obligations, among other things, prohibit pay-TV providers 
from disclosing to other companies for advertising purposes personally identifiable information 
concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, without the 
subscriber's prior written or electronic consent. The proposal tentatively concludes that third-
Page 3- The Honorable Doug Collins 
party device manufacturers must afford consumers the same level of protection. Specifically, the 
proposal tentatively concludes that manufacturers must certify they are in compliance with the 
same privacy obligations as pay-TV providers. The proposal asks a number of questions about 
how best to enforce such a requirement, including whether an independent entity should validate 
third-party manufacturer's certifications, whether the Commission should maintain the 
certifications, and what the appropriate enforcement mechanism should be if there are any lapses 
in compliance with any certification. 
Additionally, the NPRM notes that today, competitive navigation devices such as TiVo 
must comply with a host of state and federal privacy protections that include various remedies 
for consumers. All of these protections and remedies would continue to apply under the proposal 
in theNPRM. 
I believe the Commission's proposal will lead to innovation that will improve consumer 
choice and options for content providers. As we develop a record and explore fulfilling the 
statutory mandate, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important consumer 
ISSUe. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
2411 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Schiff: 
April19, 2016 
Thank you for your letter regarding the recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 
seeking comment on how to better foster competition in the set-top box marketplace and Section 
629 of the Communications Act. Your views are very important and will be considered as part 
of the Commission' s review. 
I share your admiration for today's television landscape. There is an abundance of rich 
content and new technology. As you point out, technology is paving the way for software and 
apps to help consumers. Consumers deserve a variety of choices to view the programming they 
want, when they want and on the device they want. More choices often drive down consumer 
costs and drive up innovation. 
The issue before the Commission is how to satisfy Section 629 in a world of evolving 
technology. I agree with you that any rules we adopt must reflect marketplace realities, and I 
assure you that is a paramount concern as we consider how to meet the statutory obligation. 
At the February 18th Commission meeting, we adopted a NPRM to fulfill the statutory 
requirement of competitive choice for consumers. Like all NPRMs, this action opens a fact­
finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any fmal decision. To the extent that parties 
have concerns about any of the proposals in the NPRM they should submit specific 
recommendations for solutions or adjustments into the record. 
The new proposed rules would create a framework for providing device manufacturers, 
software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new 
technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer 
protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company's ability to package and price its 
programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes. 
The Commission's proposal ensures the security of content by looking to industry­
standard practices. Specifically, the proposal would require third party device and app 
developers to meet "robustness" requirements, which dictate how resistant a device must be to 
various forms ofhacking, that are set by the content holders, pay-TV providers, and content 
protection system makers themselves. In addition, the proposal would require third party 
devices and apps to honor entitlement information, such as whether a subscriber is entitled to 
Page 2-The Honorable Adam B. Schiff 
access content (e.g., premium channels) and how the subscriber is entitled to use that content 
(e.g., by recording it or watching it on a mobile device), established by the terms of the 
subscriber's pay-TV subscription package. This content security proposal, which was informed 
by the congressionally-mandated report drafted by the technical experts on Downloadable 
Security Technology Advisory Committee, will ensure that all content, including independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming, is sufficiently secure to prevent theft and misuse. 
With respect to your concerns about malware and cybersecurity, the NPRM ask 
commenters to address other aspects of security related to this proceeding and we welcome 
comment on this topic. 
I also share your goal of ensuring this proposal does not adversely affect independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming networks. The proposal would facilitate 
competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which 
would provide customers with a greater ability to access independent, minority-focused, and 
religious programming. With regard to your concerns on channel-placement, the proposal notes 
that there is no evidence of change in channel-positioning under the current CableCARD regime, 
even though nothing in our rules prevents third-party device manufacturers, such as TiVo, from 
making such changes today. However, to ensure we build a complete record, the NPRM invites 
comment on this issue. Our goal is to maintain the opportunity for those content providers 
currently carried by Pay-TV providers, and create new opportunities for those independent 
programmers that cannot reach Pay-TV consumers because they have been locked out of the 
system. 
You express concerns that rules intended to achieve Section 629's mandate could 
diminish the viewing experience and the economic underpinnings that support investment in 
innovative content. The Commission's proposal preserves copyright protections and the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how we should take further actions to address the concerns you 
raise. For instance, the item asks numerous questions about how to protect the rights and 
negotiated agreements of content owners. The item also specifically states that "our regulations 
must ensure that Navigation Devices ... cannot technically disrupt, impede or impair the delivery 
of services to an MVPD subscriber." In this vein, the items asks a number of questions related to 
advertising and copyright concerns raised by content owners. 
You also note the importance of privacy protections for consumers under the new 
framework. Let me assure you that the proposal we adopted seeks to ensure that the privacy 
protections that exist today will also apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 
Today, pay-TV providers abide by privacy obligations under Sections 631 and 338 ofthe 
Communications Act. These privacy obligations, among other things, prohibit pay-TV providers 
from disclosing to other companies for advertising purposes personally identifiable information 
concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, without the 
subscriber's prior written or electronic consent. The proposal tentatively concludes that third-
Page 3-The Honorable Adam B. Schiff 
party device manufacturers must afford consumers the same level of protection. Specifically, the 
proposal tentatively concludes that manufacturers must certify they are in compliance with the 
same privacy obligations as pay-TV providers. The proposal asks a number of questions about 
how best to enforce such a requirement, including whether an independent entity should validate 
third-party manufacturer's certifications, whether the Commission should maintain the 
certifications, and what the appropriate enforcement mechanism should be if there are any lapses 
in compliance with any certification. 
Additionally, the NPRM notes that today, competitive navigation devices such as TiVo 
must comply with a host of state and federal privacy protections that include various remedies 
for consumers. All of these protections and remedies would continue to apply under the proposal 
in theNPRM. 
I believe the Commission's proposal will lead to innovation that will improve consumer 
choice and options for content providers. As we develop a record and explore fulfilling the 
statutory mandate, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important consumer 
ISSUe. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
O FFICE O F 
THE C H AIRMAN 
The Honorable Lamar Smith 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
2409 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Smith: 
Aprill9, 2016 
Thank you for your letter regarding the recent Notice of Proposed Ru1e Making (NPRM) 
seeking comment on how to better foster competition in the set-top box marketplace and Section 
629 of the Communications Act. Your views are very important and will be considered as part 
of the Commission' s review. 
I share your admiration for today's television landscape. There is an abundance of rich 
content and new technology. As you point out, technology is paving the way for software and 
apps to help consumers. Consumers deserve a variety of choices to view the programming they 
want, when they want and on the device they want. More choices often drive down consumer 
costs and drive up innovation. 
The issue before the Commission is how to satisfy Section 629 in a world of evolving 
technology. I agree with you that any rules we adopt must reflect marketplace realities, and I 
assure you that is a paramount concern as we consider how to meet the statutory obligation. 
At the February 18th Commission meeting, we adopted a NPRM to fulfill the statutory 
requirement of competitive choice for consumers. Like all NPRMs, this action opens a fact­
fmding dialog to build a record upon which to base any fmal decision. To the extent that parties 
have concerns about any of the proposals in the NPRM they should submit specific 
recommendations for solutions or adjustments into the record. 
The new proposed ru1es wou1d create a framework for providing device manufacturers, 
software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new 
technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer 
protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company's ability to package and price its 
programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes. 
The Commission' s proposal ensures the security of content by looking to industry­
standard practices. Specifically, the proposal wou1d require third party device and app 
developers to meet "robustness" requirements, which dictate how resistant a device must be to 
various forms of hacking, that are set by the content holders, pay-TV providers, and content 
protection system makers themselves. In addition, the proposal wou1d require third party 
devices and apps to honor entitlement information, such as whether a subscriber is entitled to 
Page 2-The Honorable Lamar Smith 
access content (e.g., premium channels) and how the subscriber is entitled to use that content 
(e.g., by recording it or watching it on a mobile device), established by the terms of the 
subscriber's pay-TV subscription package. This content security proposal, which was informed 
by the congressionally-mandated report drafted by the technical experts on Downloadable 
Security Technology Advisory Committee, will ensure that all content, including independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming, is sufficiently secure to prevent theft and misuse. 
With respect to your concerns about malware and cybersecurity, the NPRM ask 
commenters to address other aspects of security related to this proceeding and we welcome 
comment on this topic. 
I also share your goal of ensuring this proposal does not adversely affect independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming networks. The proposal would facilitate 
competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which 
would provide customers with a greater ability to access independent, minority-focused, and 
religious programming. With regard to your concerns on channel-placement, the proposal notes 
that there is no evidence of change in channel-positioning under the current CableCARD regime, 
even though nothing in our rules prevents third-party device manufacturers, such as TiVo, from 
making such changes today. However, to ensure we build a complete record, the NPRM invites 
comment on this issue. Our goal is to maintain the opportunity for those content providers 
currently carried by Pay-TV providers, and create new opportunities for those independent 
programmers that cannot reach Pay-TV consumers because they have been locked out of the 
system. 
You express concerns that rules intended to achieve Section 629's mandate could 
diminish the viewing experience and the economic underpinnings that support investment in 
innovative content. The Commission's proposal preserves copyright protections and the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how we should take further actions to address the concerns you 
raise. For instance, the item asks numerous questions about how to protect the rights and 
negotiated agreements of content owners. The item also specifically states that "our regulations 
must ensure that Navigation Devices ... cannot technically disrupt, impede or impair the delivery 
of services to an MVPD subscriber." In this vein, the items asks a number of questions related to 
advertising and copyright concerns raised by content owners. 
You also note the importance of privacy protections for consumers under the new 
framework. Let me assure you that the proposal we adopted seeks to ensure that the privacy 
protections that exist today will also apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 
Today, pay-TV providers abide by privacy obligations under Sections 631 and 338 ofthe 
Communications Act. These privacy obligations, among other things, prohibit pay-TV providers 
from disclosing to other companies for advertising purposes personally identifiable information 
concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, without the 
subscriber's prior written or electronic consent. The proposal tentatively concludes that third-
Page 3-The Honorable Lamar Smith 
party device manufacturers must afford consumers the same level of protection. Specifically, the 
proposal tentatively concludes that manufacturers must certify they are in compliance with the 
same privacy obligations as pay-TV providers. The proposal asks a number of questions about 
how best to enforce such a requirement, including whether an independent entity should validate 
third-party manufacturer's certifications, whether the Commission should maintain the 
certifications, and what the appropriate enforcement mechanism should be if there are any lapses 
in compliance with any certification. 
Additionally, the NPRM notes that today, competitive navigation devices such as TiVo 
must comply with a host of state and federal privacy protections that include various remedies 
for consumers. All of these protections and remedies would continue to apply under the proposal 
intheNPRM. 
I believe the Commission's proposal will lead to innovation that will improve consumer 
choice and options for content providers. As we develop a record and explore fulfilling the 
statutory mandate, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important consumer 
ISSUe. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Mimi Walters 
U.S. House of Representatives 
236 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congresswoman Walters: 
Aprill9, 2016 
Thank you for your letter regarding the recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 
seeking comment on how to better foster competition in the set-top box marketplace and Section 
629 of the Communications Act. Your views are very important and will be considered as part 
of the Commission' s review. 
I share your admiration for today' s television landscape. There is an abundance of rich 
content and new technology. As you point out, technology is paving the way for software and 
apps to help consumers. Consumers deserve a variety of choices to view the programming they 
want, when they want and on the device they want. More choices often drive down consumer 
costs and drive up innovation. 
The issue before the Commission is how to satisfy Section 629 in a world of evolving 
technology. I agree with you that any rules we adopt must reflect marketplace realities, and I 
assure you that is a paramount concern as we consider how to meet the statutory obligation. 
At the February 18th Commission meeting, we adopted a NPRM to fulfill the statutory 
requirement of competitive choice for consumers. Like all NPRMs, this action opens a fact­
finding dialog to build a record upon which to base any final decision. To the extent that parties 
have concerns about any of the proposals in the NPRM they should submit specific 
recommendations for solutions or adjustments into the record. 
The new proposed rules would create a framework for providing device manufacturers, 
software developers and others the information they need to introduce innovative new 
technologies, while at the same time maintaining strong security, copyright and consumer 
protections. Nothing in this proposal changes a company's ability to package and price its 
programming to its subscribers, or requires consumers to purchase new boxes. 
The Commission' s proposal ensures the security of content by looking to industry­
standard practices. Specifically, the proposal would require third party device and app 
developers to meet "robustness" requirements, which dictate how resistant a device must be to 
various forms of hacking, that are set by the content holders, pay-TV providers, and content 
protection system makers themselves. In addition, the proposal would require third party 
devices and apps to honor entitlement information, such as whether a subscriber is entitled to 
Page 2-The Honorable Mimi Walters 
access content (e.g., premium channels) and how the subscriber is entitled to use that content 
(e.g., by recording it or watching it on a mobile device), established by the terms of the 
subscriber's pay-TV subscription package. This content security proposal, which was informed 
by the congressionally-mandated report drafted by the technical experts on Downloadable 
Security Technology Advisory Committee, will ensure that all content, including independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming, is sufficiently secure to prevent theft and misuse. 
With respect to your concerns about malware and cybersecurity, the NPRM ask 
commenters to address other aspects of security related to this proceeding and we welcome 
comment on this topic. 
I also share your goal of ensuring this proposal does not adversely affect independent, 
minority-focused, and religious programming networks. The proposal would facilitate 
competition in interfaces, search functions, and integration of programming sources, all of which 
would provide customers with a greater ability to access independent, minority-focused, and 
religious programming. With regard to your concerns on channel-placement, the proposal notes 
that there is no evidence of change in channel-positioning under the current CableCARD regime, 
even though nothing in our rules prevents third-party device manufacturers, such as TiVo, from 
making such changes today. However, to ensure we build a complete record, the NPRM invites 
comment on this issue. Our goal is to maintain the opportunity for those content providers 
currently carried by Pay-TV providers, and create new opportunities for those independent 
programmers that cannot reach Pay-TV consumers because they have been locked out of the 
system. 
You express concerns that rules intended to achieve Section 629's mandate could 
diminish the viewing experience and the economic underpinnings that support investment in 
innovative content. The Commission's proposal preserves copyright protections and the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how we should take further actions to address the concerns you 
raise. For instance, the item asks numerous questions about how to protect the rights and 
negotiated agreements of content owners. The item also specifically states that "our regulations 
must ensure that Navigation Devices ... cannot technically disrupt, impede or impair the delivery 
of services to an MVPD subscriber." In this vein, the items asks a number of questions related to 
advertising and copyright concerns raised by content owners. 
You also note the importance of privacy protections for consumers under the new 
framework. Let me assure you that the proposal we adopted seeks to ensure that the privacy 
protections that exist today will also apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 
Today, pay-TV providers abide by privacy obligations under Sections 631 and 338 of the 
Communications Act. These privacy obligations, among other things, prohibit pay-TV providers 
from disclosing to other companies for advertising purposes personally identifiable information 
concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, without the 
subscriber's prior written or electronic consent. The proposal tentatively concludes that third-
Page 3-The Honorable Mimi Walters 
party device manufacturers must afford consumers the same level of protection. Specifically, the 
proposal tentatively concludes that manufacturers must certify they are in compliance with the 
same privacy obligations as pay-TV providers. The proposal asks a number of questions about 
how best to enforce such a requirement, including whether an independent entity should validate 
third-party manufacturer's certifications, whether the Commission should maintain the 
certifications, and what the appropriate enforcement mechanism should be if there are any lapses 
in compliance with any certification. 
Additionally, the NPRM notes that today, competitive navigation devices such as TiVo 
must comply with a host of state and federal privacy protections that include various remedies 
for consumers. All of these protections and remedies would continue to apply under the proposal 
in theNPRM. 
I believe the Commission's proposal will lead to innovation that will improve consumer 
choice and options for content providers. As we develop a record and explore fulfilling the 
statutory mandate, I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important consumer 
ISSUe. 
-i:/Jfc-L 
Tom Wheeler