FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Ron Kind 
U.S. House of Representatives 
1502 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Kind: 
July 11, 2016 
Thank you very much for your letter sharing your views about how the Commission's 
proceeding for better fostering competition in the set-top box and navigation app marketplace 
might impact copyright protections and the privacy protections afforded to pay-TV consumers. I 
take your input on these issues seriously and assure you that it will receive careful consideration. 
Section 629 of the Communications Act, adopted by Congress in 1996, requires the 
Commission to promote competition in the market for devices that consumers use to access their 
pay-television content. Yet, unfortunately, the statutory mandate in section 629 is not yet 
fulfilled. The lack of competition in this market has meant few choices and high prices for 
consumers. In a recent Rasmussen Report Study, 84 percent of consumers felt their cable bill 
was too high. One of the main contributing factors to these high prices is the no-option, add-on 
fee for set-top box rental that is included on every bill, forcing consumers to spend, on average, 
$231 in rental fees annually. Even worse, a recent congressional investigation found that the 
price of most equipment fees is determined by what the market will bear, and not the actual cost 
of the equipment. 1 With the lack of competition in this market, it should come as little surprise 
that fees for set-top boxes continue to rise. 2 Clearly. consumers deserve better. 
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 decisions. Our record already contains 
more than 280.000 filings, the overwhelming majority of which come from individual 
consumers. FCC staff is actively engaged in constructive conversations with all stakeholders­
content creators, minority and independent programmers, public interest and consumer groups. 
device manufacturers and app devdopers. software security developers, and pay-TV providers of 
all sizes--on how to ensure that consumers have the competition and choice they deserve. I am 
hopeful that these discussions will yield straight-forward, feasible and effective rules for all. 
You shared your views abvut how this proceeding might affect copyright protections. 
Let me assure you that I share your interest in ensuring strong anti-piracy protections. Our 
1 U .S. SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE O"J I -J V ~:ST I G A.TION S. COMMITTE E' ON H OMELAN D SECl JR!l Y AND 
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. MfNOit fTY STAFF REPORT, INSIDE THE BOX: C USTOM ER SERVICE AND BILLING 
PRACTICE~ rN THE CABLE AND SA rELLITF INDUSTRY, 17 (Jun . 23, 20 16). 
2 One recent analysis found that the cost of cable set-top boxes has risen 185 percent since 1994 while the cost of 
computers, television and mobile phone~ has dropped by 90 percent during that same time period. 
Page 2-The Honorable Ron Kind 
proceeding will protect the role of digital rights management (DRM) platforms in the television 
ecosystem. DRM platforms offer rigorous protection against unauthorized copying and other 
violations of content owner rights. 3 Importantly, DRM platforms are not developed by content 
owners or pay-TV providers, but rather, by businesses with expertise in DRM. Some of the 
more popular solutions currently on the market are Microsoft PlayReady and Adobe Primetime. 
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission in February proposed that 
content owners would remain free to select the DRM platforms that they prefer. Developers of 
competitive apps and set-top boxes would license the DRM technology and satisfy compliance 
requirements - in the very same way that current set-top boxes support DRM, and the same way 
that competitive apps and devices already support DRM for online video. 
I also share your goal of ensuring that the privacy protections that exist today will also 
apply to alternative navigation devices and applications. 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 personally identifiable 
information concerning any subscriber, including data about a subscriber's viewing habits, 
without the subscriber's prior consent. 
I strongly believe that third-party app developers and device manufacturers must afford 
consumers the same level of protection as afforded by pay-TV providers. While the NPRM 
proposes that competitive devices and apps certify compliance with the privacy protections in the 
Act, we also invited parties to provide alternative proposals that would ensure the preservation of 
these important privacy protections. 
We will continue to engage with stakeholders on this important issue. Notably, our 
record includes filings on this issue from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a group of 
state attorneys general (state AGs)- representing the states of California, Illinois, New York, 
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. In their comments, the FTC and 
the state AGs explain that- if we require competitive devices and apps to publicly commit to 
providing the same privacy protections required of pay-TV providers under the Communications 
Act-the FTC and the state AGs would be willing and able to enforce the privacy commitments 
made by third party app and device manufacturers just as they currently enforce other privacy 
commitments made by apps and devices. I am confident that by working with stakeholders and 
our federal and state partners, we will identify clear rules of the road that will afford consumers 
with strong privacy protections and the enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure compliance 
by third parties. 
The record we are developing will help us preserve strong copyright and privacy 
protections while delivering American consumers meaningful choice. Thank you for your 
3 See DOWNLOADABLE SEC. T ECH. ADVISOR Y COMM., DST AC FINAL REPORT 262-67 (Aug. 28, 20 15), 
https:/ / transition. fcc .gov/dstacl dstac-report- final-082820 15 .pdf. 
Page 3-The Honorable Ron Kind 
engagement in this proceeding, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this 
important consumer issue. 
Tom Wheeler