Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
FCC Form 325 Data Collection 
Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 17-290
MB Docket No. 17-105
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  November 16, 2017 Released: November 16, 2017
Comment Date:  (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date:  (75 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners Clyburn, O’Rielly, and Carr issuing separate 
statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on whether to eliminate 
Form 325, Annual Report of Cable Television Systems, or, in the alternative, on ways to modernize and 
streamline the form.  Form 325 collects operational information from cable television systems 
nationwide, including their network structure, system-wide capacity, programming, and number of 
subscribers.  There have been significant changes in the multichannel video programming distributor 
(MVPD) marketplace and in the way cable systems operate since the Commission last examined the 
requirement to file Form 325 almost two decades ago.  Given these transformations in the industry, and 
the commercial availability of cable operator-related data, we think it is appropriate to take a fresh look at 
the form and to evaluate the continued need for the Form 325 information collection.  We also note that, 
as part of the record in the Commission’s Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative proceeding,
1
some industry commenters request that the Commission reevaluate the requirement for cable systems to 
file Form 325 and consider whether the form should be eliminated to reduce burdens on the cable 
industry.
2
  We seek comment on whether the costs of the Form 325 data collection now exceed the 
benefits of the information and on whether there may be less burdensome ways for the Commission to 
                                                     
1
Earlier this year, the Commission launched a proceeding to review its rules applicable to media entities and 
eliminate or modify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome.  See FCC, Public Notice, 
Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (2017).  This proceeding 
also follows the direction of the staff’s 2014 report on process reform, which states that “the Commission should 
initiate a rulemaking to update FCC Form 325, capturing data more reflective of the current MVPD marketplace and 
technologies.”  See Federal Communications Commission, Report on FCC Process Reform, at 74 (Feb. 14, 2014), 
available at https://www.fcc.gov/article/da-14-199a2.  This proceeding furthers several of the goals enunciated by 
Commission staff in that report, including streamlining an agency data collection to “lessen burdens on regulatees, 
FCC staff and the public” and improving interactions with external stakeholders.  Id. at 4.  See also Remarks of FCC 
Chairman Ajit Pai at the Hudson Institute, The Importance of Economic Analysis at the FCC, at 4 (Apr. 5, 2017), 
available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-economic-analysis-communications-policy (observing that 
data collection at the Commission should be improved to enable better informed decisions and noting that certain 
reporting requirements that are duplicative or unnecessary impose high costs on industry).
2
See Comments of the American Cable Association, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 26-27 (ACA Comments); 
Comments of NCTA – The Internet and Television Association, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 29-30 (NCTA 
Comments); Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 17-18 (Verizon Comments).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
2
obtain this data or on whether the form should be modified to reflect technological and other pertinent 
industry changes.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Form 325 collects operational information from cable television systems nationwide, 
including data about subscriber numbers, equipment, plant information, frequency and signal distribution 
information, and programming.
3
  The form must be filed annually by all cable systems with 20,000 or 
more subscribers, which accounts for the vast majority of cable subscribers, and a random sampling of 
small cable systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers.
4
  Each year in December, the Commission sends 
a notification to each operator that must file Form 325 and instructs the operator to file the form 
electronically via the Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) within 60 days from the date of 
the letter.
5
  Form 325 filers report data from the last week in December of the preceding year.  Cable 
systems have filed the current version of Form 325 since 2003, with minor updates made in 2008.
6
  Filers 
have been required to file the form electronically via COALS since 2005.
7
3. The Commission first developed the form for use in 1966
8
and subsequently adopted it as 
an annual filing requirement in 1971.
9
  The Commission explained in 1971 that the form was “necessary 
to enable the Commission to keep abreast of [cable TV system] developments, fulfill its regulatory 
responsibilities in this field, and assist Congress in its consideration of related legislative proposals.”
10
  At 
that time, the Commission required that all cable systems file the form, declining to exclude small 
systems from this requirement because the Commission concluded that it needed comprehensive data to 
properly evaluate such systems.
11
  
                                                     
3
See 47 CFR § 76.403.  The FCC Form 325 is available via the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/forms
or https://fcc.gov/coals/.  See Appendix B. 
4
47 CFR § 76.403. 
5
See id.  In recent years, this notification letter has been emailed to cable systems.  Follow up notifications to 
operators that fail to file on time are sent via certified mail.
6
See FCC, Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments 
Requested, Notice, 73 FR 50814 (Aug. 28, 2008) (describing refinements made to Form 325).
7
FCC, Public Notice, Media Bureau Implements Mandatory Electronic Filing of FCC Forms 320, 322, 324, and 
325 Via COALS, 19 FCC Rcd 13053 (MB 2004).
8
Amendment of Subpart L, Part 91, to Adopt Rules and Regulations to Govern the Grant of Authorizations in the 
Business Radio Service for Microwave Stations to Relay Television Signals to Community Antenna Systems; 
Amendment of Subpart I, Part 21, to Adopt Rules and Regulations to Govern the Grant of Authorizations in the 
Domestic Public Point-To-Point Microwave Radio Service for Microwave Stations Used to Relay Television 
Broadcast Signals to Community Antenna Television Systems; Amendment of Parts 21, 74, and 91 to Adopt Rules 
and Regulations Relating to the Distribution of Television Broadcast Signals By Community Antenna Television 
Systems, and Related Matters, Second Report and Order, 2 FCC 2d 725, 765, para. 99 (1966).  The 1966 Form 325 
requested ownership information, number of subscribers, broadcast signal carriage, program origination data, certain 
financial data, and a map of the system.
9
Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna 
Television Systems; and Inquiry Into the Development of Communications Technology and Services to Formulate 
Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking and/or Legislative Proposals, Third Report and Order, 32 FCC 2d 13, 14, para. 5 
(1971).  
10
Id. at 13, para. 2.
11
Id. at 14, para. 5 (finding that “excusing small systems from filing certain data would deprive the Commission of 
the very information which it lacks”).  In 1972, the Commission adopted rules governing the Cable Television 
Service, which included the annual Form 325 reporting requirement.  See Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the 
Commission’s Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems; and Inquiry into the 
Development of Communications Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking and/or 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
3
4. The Commission’s last significant modification of the Form 325 data collection was in 
1999.
12
  At that time, the Commission revised and streamlined the form, and significantly reduced the 
number of cable systems required to file Form 325 annually by devising a sampling methodology to 
gather information from systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers rather than requiring all such 
systems to file each year.
13
  The Commission sought “to strike a balance to reduce the burdens placed 
upon the industry and on Commission resources in the Form 325 information collection process while 
still retaining access to core information that is needed by the Commission in order to perform its 
regulatory functions.”
14
  It noted that the processing and compilation of Form 325 data was “a labor 
intensive process for the Commission.”
15
  The Commission concluded that the information collected 
based on the sampling of subscribers would “provide the Commission with an adequate profile of how 
cable systems operate today and how they impact the general population.”
16
  At that time, the 
Commission also considered whether to eliminate this data collection process entirely, assessing the 
utility of the form for purposes of the agency’s policymaking and enforcement activities.
17
  The 
Commission was not persuaded to eliminate the form, and it found that “there is sufficient value in the 
information collected . . . that the information collection process should not be altogether eliminated.”
18
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Legislative Proposals; Amendment of Section 74.1107 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Avoid Filing of 
Repetitious Requests; Amendment of Section 74.1031(c) and 74.1105(a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules and 
Regulations As They Relate to Addition of New Television Signals; Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the 
Commission’s Rules and Regulations Relative to Federal–State or Local Relationships in the Community Antenna 
Television System Field; and/or Formulation of Legislative Proposals in this Respect; Amendment of Subpart K of 
Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations With Respect to Technical Standards for Community Antenna 
Television Systems, Report and Order, 36 FCC 2d 143 (1972) (adopting 47 CFR § 76.401).  Before 1976, cable 
operators were required to file the form on a fixed date (on or before March 1).  47 CFR § 76.401.  In 1976, the 
Commission changed the process to facilitate data automation, sending cable operators a pre-filled form that cable 
operators corrected and returned to the Commission within 60 days.  See Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission’s 
Rules and Regulations to Alter Cable Television Reporting Requirements, Order, 61 FCC 2d 1014 (1976).  At this 
time, the Commission also moved the Form 325 reporting requirement to its current location at Section 76.403 of 
the rules.  See id. (adopting 47 CFR § 76.403).  This process remained in place until 2005, when operators were 
required to file the form electronically via COALS.  
12
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --“Annual Report of Cable Television Systems,” Form 325, Filed Pursuant to 
Section 76.403 of the Commission’s Rules, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 4720 (1999) (1999 Form 325 Order).
13
Id. at 4725-26, para. 12.  
14
Id. at 4725, para. 11.  But see id. at 4742-43 (Statements of Commissioners Furchtgott-Roth and Powell dissenting 
from the Commission’s decision not to eliminate Form 325).
15
Id. at 4722, para. 4.
16
Id. at 4726, para. 12.
17
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --“Annual Report of Cable Television Systems,” Form 325, Filed Pursuant to 
Section 76.403 of the Commission’s Rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 12266, 12268, para. 6 
(1998).  Specifically, the Commission sought comment “on whether it continues to be important for the Commission 
to have access to the type of data reported on the current Form 325 and the extent to which this information is 
available from other sources.”  Id.  In response, two commenters argued in favor of keeping the form—the Institute 
for Public Representation, which argued that the information in the form is critical to the Commission’s assessment 
of cable operator compliance with horizontal integration, must carry, and leased access rules, and the National 
Association of Broadcasters, which argued that the information would be needed for purposes of the Commission’s 
digital television must carry rulemaking proceeding.  1999 Form 325 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4724-25, paras. 9-10.  
Other industry commenters argued that the form serves no identifiable regulatory or policy purpose, is burdensome 
to the cable industry, and contains information that can be obtained from alternative sources, including data 
published by commercial resources or available through other government filings.  Id. at 4722-24, paras. 5-8.
18
1999 Form 325 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4725, 4727, paras. 11, 14-15.  See also 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --
“Annual Report of Cable Television Systems,” Form 325, Filed Pursuant to Section 76.403 of the Commission’s 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
4
5. Today, industry commenters argue that Form 325 is burdensome for cable systems and 
has outlived its usefulness, given the availability of information about the cable industry from alternative 
sources and the changes in the MVPD marketplace.  In the 2017 Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative proceeding, NCTA – The Internet and Television Association (NCTA), the American Cable 
Association (ACA), Verizon, and ITTA – The Voice of America’s Broadband Providers (ITTA) each 
assert that the Commission should eliminate the Form 325 requirement.  NCTA argues that the routine 
collection of information does not make sense in today’s competitive video marketplace, particularly 
where there is no similar requirement applicable to non-cable MVPDs or online video distributors.
19
  
NCTA argues further that the Form 325 filing “is not statutorily required and does not serve any clear or 
legitimate purpose.”
20
  ACA contends that Form 325 collects information that is publicly available or 
provided to the Commission in other required filings, such as signal distribution and frequency 
information, as well as information that has little utility today, such as set-top box and cable plant 
details.
21
  According to ACA, the form is no longer necessary and should be eliminated.
22
  Likewise, 
Verizon argues that the Commission should eliminate Form 325 and its associated data collection, 
opining that the information collected on the form does not fit competitive video services such as 
Verizon, is not reflective of today’s competitive video marketplace, and can be obtained from other 
sources.
23
  In reply comments, ITTA agrees with the arguments set forth by NCTA, ACA, and Verizon in 
favor of eliminating Form 325.
24
  No commenters argued in favor of retaining the form.  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Utility of Form 325 Reporting Requirement
6. We seek comment on the continued utility of collecting Form 325 data and whether the 
Commission should eliminate the form entirely.  Given the substantial changes in the MVPD marketplace 
and in the operations of cable systems since the Commission last considered the utility and effectiveness 
of the Form 325 data collection almost two decades ago, including the transition to digital television and 
the development of new technologies and ways to deliver video programming to consumers, we believe it 
is appropriate to consider whether the form continues to be useful to the agency’s regulatory and 
adjudicatory functions with respect to the cable industry and whether the information collected therein is 
available from alternative sources.  We also seek comment on the costs of this requirement for cable 
systems and on whether the benefits of the information outweigh the costs.   
7. We seek comment on whether changes in the MVPD marketplace or other factors since 
the Commission last considered the utility and effectiveness of the Form 325 data collection almost two 
decades ago should lead the Commission to a different conclusion regarding the need for the Commission 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Rules, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 9707 (2000).  With respect to the argument that certain information 
on Form 325 is available from other sources, the Commission observed that there are no assurances such 
information is current or collected consistently by commercial entities, and it noted that having current and accurate 
information available to the Commission is “of considerable importance.”  1999 Form 325 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 
4727, paras. 14-15.
19
NCTA Comments at 30.  See also ACA Comments at 27 (noting that the Commission does not request similar 
data from DBS providers or competitive video entrants that are not registered in the COALS database).
20
NCTA Comments at 30.  
21
ACA Comments at 27.  See also Reply Comments of the American Cable Association, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 
9-10. 
22
ACA Comments at 27.
23
Verizon Comments at 17-18.  See also Reply Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 6.
24
Reply Comments of ITTA – The Voice of America’s Broadband Providers, MB Docket No. 17-105, at 8-9 (ITTA 
Reply).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
5
to collect the data required by the form.  To what extent do the changes in the industry and regulatory 
environment since 1999 obviate or reduce the need for this information?  For example, in the 1999 Form 
325 Order, the Commission noted the utility of the form in providing information about the number of 
leased access channels being used on cable systems.
25
  However, the Commission provides information 
on the average number of leased access channels in its annual report on cable industry prices.
26
  Is it still 
useful to collect this information on Form 325?  We note that the Commission started collecting 
information from cable systems via Form 325 well before cable operators became significant players in 
the broadband market.  The Commission currently collects information from broadband providers, 
including cable operators, on FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, 
and there is some overlap between the Form 325 and Form 477 data collections.
27
  Is there a continued 
need for the Commission to collect Form 325 data to support the Commission’s policy initiatives and 
decision making
28
or to inform reports to Congress, such as the Commission’s annual video competition 
report?
29
  Would eliminating Form 325 hinder the Commission’s ability to evaluate the state of 
competition among cable systems?  If so, what aspects of the form are essential to this evaluation?  
8. We also seek comment on the burden for cable operators to file Form 325 each year and, 
in particular, on the amount of time and resources it takes to complete the filing for each cable system.  
Do the benefits and uses of the information collected via Form 325 outweigh the burdens and costs on 
cable systems to file the form?
30
  To the extent the Commission might in the future need discrete 
                                                     
25
1999 Form 325 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4729, para. 22.
26
See Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; 
Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, Report on 
Cable Industry Prices, 31 FCC Rcd 11498, 11509, para. 21, table 6 (2016).
27
For example, Form 325 solicits information on the number of cable modem (i.e., broadband) subscribers and the 
number of telephony subscribers for each cable system, and Form 477 collects information on the number of 
broadband and telephony subscribers by census tract.  See Appendix B; FCC Form 477, Local Telephone 
Competition and Broadband Reporting, Instructions, Section 5: Completing Each Section of FCC Form 477 (Dec. 5, 
2016), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf.
28
See infra note 32.
29
Form 325 data has been cited in the Commission’s annual video competition reports, for example, to show the 
growth in the number of all-digital cable systems and the percentage of households passed by incumbent cable 
systems as well as the percentage of households passed that subscribe to these systems.  See, e.g., Annual 
Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Sixteenth Report, 30 
FCC Rcd 3253, 3287-88, para. 79, tables 3-4 (2015) (using Form 325 data to show the growth in all-digital cable 
systems for cable systems with more than 20,000 subscribers and for the sampling of cable systems with between 
5,000 and 20,000 subscribers); Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of 
Video Programming, Fourteenth Report, 27 FCC Rcd 8610, 8641-42, 8658, paras. 70, 116, n.350 (2012) (citing 
Form 325 data to show the percentage of households passed by incumbent cable systems that subscribe to these 
systems as well as the number of very small cable systems (fewer than 5,000 subscribers) surveyed that offer neither 
Internet access nor television access).  In addition, Form 325 data has been cited as a source in the Commission’s 
annual reports on cable industry prices.  See, e.g., Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer 
Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming 
Service, and Equipment, Report on Cable Industry Prices, 31 FCC Rcd 11498, 11515, attach. 1 (2016) (citing Form 
325 data for the numbers of cable communities by each sampling group (i.e., noncompetitive group and effective 
competition group)).  The Commission has used Form 325 data to inform other reports to Congress.  See, e.g., In-
State Broadcast Programming: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 304 of the Satellite Television Extension 
and Localism Act of 2010, Report, 26 FCC Rcd 11919, 11942-43, para. 42 (2011) (using Form 325 data to 
determine the carriage of in-state broadcast stations on cable systems).  
30
See also infra Section III.C (seeking comment on the relative burdens and benefits of applying the Form 325 
requirement to smaller cable systems).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
6
information, would it be more cost effective for the Commission to undertake targeted information 
collections to obtain it?
9. We also seek comment on whether and to what extent Form 325 merely duplicates 
information that the Commission can obtain from commercial sources.  For example, the Commission 
routinely cites data from SNL Kagan, BIA/Kelsey, The Nielsen Company, and Warren Communications 
Television and Cable Factbook.
31
  What other sources of cable data are available?  Does the information 
collected by other sources duplicate what is collected via Form 325?  In recent years the Commission has 
cited Form 325 data in a few proceedings.
32
  To the extent this information continues to be useful, can the 
Commission obtain it from other sources?  Is there unique value in having the Commission collect the 
information contained within Form 325, rather than relying on third-party sources?
10. Are there other external uses of the Form 325 data collection of which the Commission 
should take account?
33
  We note that Warren Communications annually files a Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) request for Form 325 data from the Commission and that other entities and individuals have 
periodically sought Form 325 data through FOIA requests.  The Commission does not provide this 
information in response to FOIA requests until three years after initial filing due to confidentiality 
requests that are routinely filed by cable operators.  Is any information from alternative sources based on 
the FCC’s Form 325 data?    
                                                     
31
See, e.g., Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eighteenth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 568 (2017) (citing data from Nielsen, BIA/Kelsey, and SNL Kagan throughout as 
support for multiple data points regarding MVPDs, broadcast television stations, and online video distributors); 
Cable Television Technical and Operational Standards, Report and Order, MB Docket No. 12-217, FCC 17-120, at 
2, 35, para. 3, app. C, para. 8 & nn.16, 18 (rel. Sept. 25, 2017) (citing data from SNL Kagan on the percentage of 
cable video customers that subscribe to digital service, and data from Warren Communications Television & Cable 
Factbook on the number of cable systems by subscriber size).
32
In a recent channel sharing order, the Commission reviewed data collected from the 2015 Form 325 filing to 
determine the number of low power television (LPTV) and Class A stations carried on cable systems pursuant to 
mandatory carriage.  Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 
Auctions; Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power 
Television and Television Translator Stations; Channel Sharing by Full Power and Class A Stations Outside the 
Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction Context, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 2637, 2645, para. 12, 
n.47 (2017).  See also Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s 
Rules, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1713, 1717-18, 1722, 
1728-29, para. 9-10, 20, nn.32-33, 36, 66-68, app. B (2012) (using Form 325 data to determine the number of cable 
subscribers served by all-digital systems, the number of broadcast stations that elect or default to must carry on cable 
systems, and the number of small cable systems relying on the HD carriage exemption).  Further, the Commission 
has used Form 325 data to evaluate and craft exemptions in rulemaking proceedings implementing accessibility 
rules pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010.  See Accessibility 
of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus; Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus 
Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 17330, 17405, para. 117, n.473 (2013) (citing Form 325 data for its estimate of the 
number of subscribers that would be affected by a longer phase-in period for smaller and mid-sized cable systems 
and operators in a 2013 order adopting accessible user interfaces requirements); Closed Captioning of Internet 
Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 787, 843, para. 96, n.382 (2012) (using information 
collected via Form 325 on the number of deployed set-top boxes to conclude that applying IP closed captioning 
rules only to devices with built-in screens would exclude one of the most common means by which consumers view 
programming).  
33
We also note that Form 325 filings are made available to the public via COALS three years after initial filing.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
7
B. Ways to Improve and Modernize Form 325 Data Collection
11. If the Commission decides to retain the Form 325 data collection, we seek comment on 
ways to improve and modernize the form.  The cable television industry has experienced many changes 
since Form 325 was last updated, most notably the ongoing transition to digital technology and the 
introduction of video programming delivered via Internet protocol (IPTV).  These changes may render 
some data collected by the form no longer necessary and raise new information needs not met by the 
current form.  If the Commission decides to retain the Form 325 data collection, we seek to minimize the 
administrative burden on cable television systems and improve the quality and usefulness of Form 325 
data to reflect technological and other pertinent industry changes.  We also seek to ensure that the data we 
collect are closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put by the Commission.  
12. In addition, to the extent the form is retained, we propose to upgrade the current COALS 
filing system to minimize the filing burden for cable systems.  An upgraded filing system would be able 
to pre-fill much of the data that does not change from year to year using other filings, such as community 
registrations, online public inspection files (OPIF), and previous Form 325 submissions.  Cable operators 
will only have to verify the continued accuracy of any pre-filled information, and update those fields only 
if necessary.
13. Currently, Form 325 is organized into five parts: (1) operator information; (2) general 
information; (3) frequency and signal distribution information; (4) channel line-up; and (5) certification.
34
  
We seek comment below on each section of the form.  We also seek comment on whether the 
Commission should consider any organizational changes to Form 325, such as changes to the categories 
of information collected.  Commenters should specify any elements of the data collection that we should 
consider for elimination, whether because of redundancy, insufficient usefulness, or availability from 
other sources, as well as elements of the data collection that are particularly burdensome to filers.  We 
also ask commenters to specify the data elements that should be retained or modified, as well as the 
rationale for any proposed change.  Is there any information contained in Form 325 that would be helpful 
to consumers?  Could some of the information be made publicly available earlier than three years from 
the date of filing?
35
1. Operator Information
14. Identification and Contact Information.  To the extent the form is retained, we tentatively 
conclude that cable system identification and contact information should remain a part of the Form 325 
data collection.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on whether we should modify or 
streamline this section of the form.  Currently, Form 325 requires filers to provide the cable operator’s 
legal name and complete mailing address, including zip code.  Are there any ways in which the 
Commission can streamline this section of the form, such as by pre-filling information using a cable 
system’s Physical System Identifier (PSID), which is a six-digit number used by the Commission to 
identify each cable system? 
2. General Information
15. Subscriber Information.  We seek comment on whether there is a continued need to 
collect cable subscriber information to the extent the form is retained, and, if not, whether we should 
eliminate this section of the form.  We seek comment on the uses of this data and whether we can obtain it 
from other sources.  We also seek comment on whether there are ways the Commission can update or 
streamline the reporting of information on cable subscribers, if it decides to retain this section of the form.  
Part II of Form 325 requires the reporting of subscriber information, including the number of subscribers; 
                                                     
34
Part V of Form 325 requires certification that all statements of fact contained on the form are true, complete, and 
correct to the best of the certifying official’s knowledge, information, and belief, and are made in good faith.  
35
See infra para. 24 (explaining that Form 325 filings and the information contained therein generally are not made 
available to the public until three years after filing, but are made public via COALS thereafter).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
8
number of potential subscribers; whether the system is overbuilt by a competing cable system; number of 
homes passed that are also passed by a competing cable system; name of incumbent operator(s) where the 
system is overbuilt by a competing cable system; number of cable modem subscribers; and number of 
telephony subscribers.  Subscriber data is a useful measure of the size and competitiveness of a cable 
system, and has been used by the Commission to prepare the annual video competition report and to 
inform our policymaking.
36
  For example, the Commission has used subscriber data as the basis for 
crafting rule exemptions and justifying differing regulatory treatment based on the number of subscribers 
served.
37
  Is subscriber data available from alternative sources, and, if so, is such data as accurate and 
current as data provided directly to the Commission by cable systems?  We tentatively conclude that we 
should eliminate the collection of modem and telephony subscriber data via Form 325 because similar 
data is collected via FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, and we 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
38
  Should we collect data on the number of analog and digital 
subscribers so that the Commission can track the progress of each system’s transition to all-digital 
service?  Or, is this information available from public sources?  We also seek comment on whether we 
should retain the existing instruction for how bulk rate customers are calculated for the form, if the 
Commission continues to require reporting of subscriber numbers.  Currently, when reporting the number 
of subscribers on Form 325, operators must include an estimate of the number of subscribers who pay a 
bulk rate for service through an intermediary, such as apartment management.  On the existing form, the 
instructions explain that the number of bulk rate customers should be calculated as follows: “[b]ulk-rate 
customers = total annual bulk-rate charge divided by basic annual subscription rate for individual 
households.”
39
  Is there any reason to change this approach?  Commenters advocating a different approach 
should explain their proposed methodology and why it would be an improvement over the one currently 
in place.  
16. Equipment Information.  We seek comment on whether there is a continued need to 
collect equipment information via Form 325 to the extent the form is retained, and, if not, whether we 
should eliminate this section of the form.  We seek comment on the uses of this data and whether we can 
obtain it from other sources.  We also seek comment on whether there are ways the Commission can 
modernize this portion of Form 325 to better reflect devices used by consumers to view cable 
                                                     
36
See supra notes 29, 32.  But see Verizon Comments at 17 (“[I]nformation on subscriber counts and ‘homes 
passed’ by cable systems does not reflect consumer video viewing patterns or the competitive nature of the video 
distribution market.”).
37
See, e.g., Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, Report and Order, 
26 FCC Rcd 17222, 17244-46, 17253-54, paras. 35-37, 52-54 (2011) (allowing MVPD systems with fewer than 
15,000 subscribers and that are not affiliated with a larger operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD
subscribers to file streamlined financial hardship waivers to delay compliance from CALM Act rules for up to two 
years and excusing MVPD operators with fewer than 400,000 subscribers from the requirement to perform annual 
spot checks); Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus; Accessible Emergency 
Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation of the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 17330, 17401, para. 114 (2013) (granting a five-year delayed compliance 
deadline to MVPD operators with 400,000 or fewer subscribers and to MVPD systems with 20,000 or fewer 
subscribers that are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers).
38
See Form 477 Resources for Filers, https://www.fcc.gov/general/form-477-resources-filers.  Links to instructions 
detailing the data collected on the form and screen-shots of the form are provided at this location.  Form 477 collects 
data semi-annually about broadband connections to end-user locations, wired and wireless local telephone services, 
and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and it requires all covered providers to file, regardless of 
size.  See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Collection, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 
6329, 6330, para. 2 (2017).
39
See Instructions for FCC Form 325, Annual Report of Cable Television Systems, Section II.2.a (General 
Information, Subscriber Information, Number of Subscribers). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
9
programming, if it decides to retain this section.  Part II of Form 325 collects the following equipment 
information: the total number of leased cable modems deployed throughout the system and the total 
number of leased set-top boxes deployed in the system, including a breakdown of this total into the 
number of analog, hybrid, and digital set-top boxes leased.  Is this information relevant to the 
Commission’s duties under Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended?
40
  Should we 
modify the equipment section of Form 325 to better achieve our duties under Section 629, and, if so, 
how?  Or, is this information available from public sources?  What information will best allow the 
Commission to determine whether the market for equipment used to access multichannel video 
programming is fully competitive, pursuant to Section 629?  How can we best measure the level of 
competition as contemplated by Section 629?
41
  
17. Plant Information.  We seek comment on whether there is a continued need to collect 
plant information via Form 325 to the extent the form is retained, and, if not, whether we should eliminate 
this section of the form.  We seek comment on the uses of this data and whether we can obtain it from 
other sources.  We also seek comment on how the Commission can modernize this portion of Form 325 to 
better reflect system capacity, if it decides to retain this section.  Part II of Form 325 collects information 
on the cable plant, including the type of delivery system used (e.g., xDSL, fiber to the home, Hybrid 
Fiber-Coaxial (HFC) network, or other); the length of optical fiber used in the plant; the number of fiber 
optic nodes, including the average number of subscribers served from these nodes; whether the cable 
system is part of a cluster, and, if so, the number of systems included in the cluster and total number of 
subscribers served by the cluster; and whether the facility uses Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) 
links, as well as a list of all call signs used by the system.  Is this information still relevant to the 
Commission’s regulation of cable television?  Collecting information about system technology and 
capacity may enable us to better understand the ability of a system to comply with various regulations, 
based on their sophistication, capacity, and other technological limitations.  Given that, in a digital world, 
the technical specifications of the cable plant no longer directly correlate to the systems’ capacity for 
delivering programming, these questions may not provide meaningful information about an ever-growing 
percentage of systems.  As cable systems have converted to digital technology, data on the number of 
programming streams, as well as on the compression and modulation used, may be more valuable than 
previous metrics used for measuring capacity of analog systems.  We seek comment on this analysis.  Is 
such data available from other sources?  In conjunction with Section III.B.3 below (frequency and signal 
distribution information), we seek comment on how the Commission can update its questions on system 
technology and capacity should it retain the form.
3. Frequency and Signal Distribution Information
18. We seek comment on whether there is a continued need to collect information on 
frequency and signal distribution to the extent the form is retained, and, if not, whether we should 
eliminate this section of the form.  We seek comment on the uses of this data and whether we can obtain it 
from other sources.  We also seek comment on how the Commission can modernize the questions about a 
                                                     
40
Section 629(a) directs the Commission to “adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability . . . of . . . 
equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over 
multichannel video programming systems” from sources other than the multichannel video programming distributor.  
47 U.S.C. § 549(a).  Section 629(e) states that the regulations will sunset “when the Commission determines that—
(1) the market for the multichannel video programming distributors is fully competitive; (2) the market for converter 
boxes, and interactive communications equipment, used in conjunction with that service is fully competitive; and (3) 
elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest.”  Id. § 549(e).
41
See GAO Report, Video Programming: FCC Should Conduct Additional Analysis to Evaluate Need for Set-Top 
Box Regulation, at 22-23 (Sept. 2017) (recommending that the FCC, “as part of its future annual video competition 
reports, analyze how the ongoing evolution in the video programming market affects competition in the related 
market for set-top boxes and devices, including how this evolution affects the extent to which consumer choice for 
devices to access MVPD content remains a relevant aspect of the competitive environment”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
10
cable system’s technical capabilities, capacity, and potential for growth, including its ability to offer 
sophisticated services, if it decides to retain this section of the form.  Part III of Form 325 requires cable 
systems to report frequency and signal distribution information, including available upstream spectrum 
and maximum activated upstream spectrum; available downstream spectrum and maximum activated 
downstream spectrum; number of channels allocated to analog video programming and the number of 
channels actually used for analog video programming; number of channels allocated to digital video 
programming and the number of channels actually used for digital video programming; number of digital 
streams carried per 6 MHz of bandwidth; and modulation method used.  To what extent does this type of 
data enable the Commission to measure a system’s competitiveness and aid our policymaking with 
respect to the cable industry?  Does the ongoing cable transition to digital transmission and other 
advancements in cable technology, such as IPTV, render many of the current questions on this part of the 
form ineffective or unnecessary, or does it raise new information needs not met by the current form?  Is 
there a need for the Commission to understand the current capacity of a system, its potential for increases 
in capacity, and the rate at which new capacity is being delivered into the marketplace over time?  If so, 
how can we gather information on system technology and capacity in a way that will prove flexible and 
informative as technology continues to evolve?  Is such data available from other sources?  
4. Channel Line-Up
19. We tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the collection of channel line-up 
information to the extent the form is retained.  We note that information about a cable system’s 
programming is available from online sources, including on cable operator websites and from third-party 
guide services.  Given the availability of this information from other public sources, we tentatively 
conclude that it is not necessary to continue to collect it from the cable operators via Form 325.  We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.  If, on the other hand, the Commission ultimately decides that this 
information collection is necessary and useful, are there ways for the Commission to streamline this 
section of Form 325 to reduce the burden on cable systems to input their entire channel lineup?  For 
example, should we reduce the types of program channels that must be reported?
42
  Currently, Part IV of 
Form 325 requires cable systems to list the program name,
43
type (e.g., broadcast must carry, broadcast 
retransmission consent, leased access, public access, government access, education access, local 
origination, cable network, or other), format (e.g., analog, digital, or digital high definition), and tier (e.g., 
basic, cable programming services tier/expanded basic tier, premium, pay per view, or other) for each 
program carried on the system.  We seek general comment on the burdens associated with the collection 
of programming information and any associated benefits.  
C. Procedural Changes for Filing Form 325
20. Applicability of Requirement to Small Cable Systems.  We seek comment on whether the 
annual Form 325 filing requirement should continue to apply to a random sampling of cable systems that 
serve fewer than 20,000 subscribers, if the Commission decides to retain the form.
44
  Specifically, the 
                                                     
42
For example, we could require cable systems to report only those types of channels that relate to certain 
Commission regulatory requirements, which will allow the Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of these rules 
and facilitate enforcement.  This would include broadcast must carry stations, including local commercial stations, 
qualified local non-commercial educational (NCE) stations, and qualified LPTV or Class A stations; broadcast 
retransmission consent stations, including local commercial stations, significantly-viewed stations, distant (out-of-
market) stations, and qualified LPTV or Class A stations; leased access; public access; government access; 
educational access; and local origination.  See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 76.55, 76.56, 76.64, 76.970, 76.971.
43
The instructions to Form 325 specify that “program name” refers to “[t]he call sign of the TV broadcast station or 
abbreviation for the pay TV service or non-broadcast (usually satellite delivered) service distributed on the system 
(e.g. ESPN, CSPAN, HBO).”
44
See 47 CFR § 76.403.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
11
Commission samples approximately 50 percent of the systems serving between 5,000 and 20,000 
subscribers, but only approximately 4 percent of systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers.
45
  
21. We seek specific comment on the burden imposed by the Form 325 filing requirement on 
smaller cable systems.  In its media modernization proceeding comments, ACA contends that, should the 
Commission decide to retain Form 325, it should no longer require cable systems with fewer than 20,000 
subscribers to complete the form.
46
  According to ACA, “[r]andomly sampling smaller cable systems 
increases the burden on those smaller providers selected, as the operators often have no experience filling 
[out] the form and must often engage outside resources for assistance completing it.”
47
  Which data, if 
any, is particularly burdensome on smaller systems to provide?  Commenters should explain and quantify 
such burden.  If the Commission decides to retain the form, will the burden on small systems to file Form 
325 be significantly reduced if the Commission streamlines and modernizes the form as discussed herein?  
How is the data from smaller cable systems useful to the Commission, and does its usefulness outweigh 
the burden on such systems?  
22. We tentatively conclude that, at a minimum, the Commission should exempt systems that 
serve fewer than 5,000 subscribers and are not affiliated with a larger operator from filing Form 325, if 
the form is retained.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  Given the relative burdens and 
benefits, should we also exempt other smaller systems from having to complete the form?  In addition, for 
those small cable systems that may still be required to file, should the Commission maintain the current 
approach of requiring only a sample of these systems to file Form 325 each year?  Instead of randomly 
sampling smaller systems annually, should we require smaller systems to file the report every two, three, 
or five years, or some other time period?  How should we define small systems for such purposes?  For 
example, we could require systems that serve between 5,000 and 20,000 subscribers and are not affiliated 
with a larger operator (serving more than 2 percent of all MVPD subscribers
48
) to file every three years.  
We seek comment on these or any other alternative approaches.
23. Fixed Date for Form 325 Annual Filing.  We seek comment on whether we should set a 
fixed date on which cable systems must annually file Form 325, if the Commission decides to retain the 
form.  Currently, all systems, even those with 20,000 or more subscribers, wait for the Commission to 
notify them of their obligation to file Form 325.  This notification, in addition to establishing the 
obligation to file, begins a 60-day clock determining when the operator must file.
49
  As a result, operators 
remain uncertain, from year to year, when they must file.  Should we instead set a fixed date on which 
filing must occur?  We believe this approach could simplify the annual reporting process and add 
certainty and efficiency to the operator’s workflow and that of the Commission, and we seek comment on 
this analysis.  If the Commission were to adopt a fixed due date, which date would be appropriate?  
Currently, we request that systems report their information as of the last full week in December, and 
believe retaining that “as of” date makes sense for year-to-year consistency.  The date should ensure that 
cable systems have sufficient time to compile and file their information.  Given that the Commission 
previously required Form 325 to be filed on March 1 of each year, would that be an appropriate date?
50
                                                     
45
Staff analysis of 2016 Form 325 Annual Report of Cable Television Systems.  For the 2016 filing year, 544 cable 
systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers were selected to file Form 325.  Of those, 354 were cable systems with 
between 5,000 and 20,000 subscribers, and 190 were cable systems with fewer than 5,000 subscribers.
46
ACA Comments at 27.  See also ITTA Reply at 9, n.33.
47
ACA Comments at 27.  See also NCTA Comments at 30 (“Operators devote many hours to completion of the 
filing for each PSID every year.”).
48
See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules, Sixth 
Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6653, 6656, para. 4 (2015).
49
See 47 CFR § 76.403.
50
See supra note 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
12
24. Confidential Treatment of Form 325. We seek comment on whether we should adopt any 
standardized confidentiality procedures for Form 325, if the Commission decides to retain the form, and, 
if so, what those standards should be.  Form 325 filings and the information contained therein generally 
are not made available to the public until three years after filing due to confidentiality requests that are 
routinely filed by cable operators, but are made public via COALS thereafter.
51
  Before the three-year 
period, the data is used by the Commission on an anonymized basis.  Should the Commission 
automatically designate certain sections of Form 325 as confidential for all filers, and, if so, which 
sections?  Is there a need to adopt more formal Form 325 confidentiality procedures or are the 
Commission’s current practices sufficient?  Should the Commission provide a mechanism for filers to 
request confidentiality within the Form 325 as it does with regard to Form 477 filers?
52
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
53
the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) relating to this NPRM.  The 
IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
26. The NPRM may result in revised information collection requirements.  If the
Commission adopts any revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a notice 
in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520).  In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
C. Ex Parte Rules
27. Permit-But-Disclose.  This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
54
  Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
                                                     
51
Cable operators, cognizant of potentially sensitive information disclosed on the form, often request that all or 
portions of the form not be made routinely available to the public pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission’s 
rules.  See, e.g., Request for Confidentiality for Information Submitted on Forms 325 for the Year 2004, Order, 21 
FCC Rcd 2312 (MB 2006) (Request for Confidentiality).  See also 47 CFR §§ 0.459, 0.461.  The Media Bureau has 
recognized that information on Form 325 is commercial in nature and, in the past, has made the determination of 
whether to keep commercial information confidential on a case-by-case basis by determining whether there is a 
“preponderance of the evidence that shows that disclosure of the information will cause the parties substantial 
competitive harm.”  Request for Confidentiality, 21 FCC Rcd at 2313, para. 4.   
52
Filers of FCC Form 477 are instructed that they may submit a request that certain information in the submission 
not be made routinely available for public inspection by so indicating in the “Filer Identification Information” for 
that submission.  See FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, Instructions, Section 
7.4: Requesting Confidentiality, at 32 (Dec. 5, 2016), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf.  
See also Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 
6329, 6346-48, paras. 51-55 (2017) (seeking comment on proposals that certain data collected in the Form 477 that 
are not commercially sensitive but are currently treated as confidential be made public).
53
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  The SBREFA 
was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA). 
54
47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
13
applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the 
presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments 
already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or 
other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be 
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission 
staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed 
consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing 
oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf).  Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex 
parte rules.
D. Filing Requirements
28. Comments and Replies.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 
47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998).
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
? Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
? All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must 
be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.  
The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the 
building.  
? Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
? U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
29. Availability of Documents.  Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will 
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12
th
Street, SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.  These 
documents will also be available via ECFS.  Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, 
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
30. People with Disabilities.  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
14
E. Additional Information
31. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Maria Mullarkey, 
Maria.Mullarkey@fcc.gov, of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 
4(j), 303, and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 
548, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
15
APPENDIX A
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must 
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the 
first page of the NPRM.  The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In addition, the NPRM and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. Form 325 collects operational information from cable television systems nationwide, 
including their network structure, system-wide capacity, programming, and number of subscribers, which 
is used to inform the Commission’s policymaking and enforcement activities on matters related to the 
cable industry.  The NPRM seeks comment on the utility of collecting Form 325 data and whether the 
Commission should continue to require this annual filing by cable television systems.  The NPRM also 
seeks comment on ways to modernize and streamline Form 325 to minimize the administrative burden on 
cable systems while ensuring that the most pertinent information about cable television systems is 
collected, if the Commission decides to retain the Form 325 data collection.  Further, the NPRM seeks 
comment on the impact of the Form 325 filing requirement on smaller cable systems and on whether the 
annual Form 325 filing requirement should continue to apply to a random sampling of cable systems that 
serve fewer than 20,000 subscribers. 
B. Legal Basis
3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, and 628 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 303, and 548.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
4
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
5
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
6
  A small business 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  The SBREFA 
was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
See id.
4
5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5
Id. § 601(6).
6
Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
16
concern is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
7
  Below, we provide a 
description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where 
feasible.
5. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard).  The Commission has also 
developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the 
Commission’s rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.
8
  
Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but 11 are small under this size 
standard.
9
  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 
or fewer subscribers.
10
  Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have 
under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.
11
  Thus, under 
this second size standard, the Commission believes that most cable systems are small.
6. Cable System Operators.  The Act also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer 
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose 
gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.”
12
  The Commission has determined that an 
operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, 
when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate.
13
  Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but 10 are small under 
this size standard.
14
  We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether 
cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,
15
and 
therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small under this size standard.
7. Open Video Services.  Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription 
services.
16
  The open video system framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily 
                                                     
7
15 U.S.C. § 632.
8
  47 CFR § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard 
of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, 
Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
9
  These data are derived from:  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857.
10
  47 CFR § 76.901(c).  
11
  Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2008, “U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,” 
page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2007).  The data do not include 851 systems for which classifying data were not 
available.
12
47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see also 47 CFR § 76.901(f) & nn.1–3.
13
47 CFR § 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, 
Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
14
These data are derived from R.R. BOWKER, BROADCASTING &CABLE YEARBOOK 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); WARREN COMMUNICATIONS NEWS, TELEVISION &
CABLE FACTBOOK 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857.
15
  The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules. 
16
See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
17
recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers.
17
  The 
OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through 
cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,
18
OVS falls within the SBA small 
business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.”
19
  The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:  all such firms having 1,500 
or fewer employees.
20
  To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on 
data currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2012.  According to that source, there were 
3,117 firms that in 2012 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Of these, 3,059 operated with less 
than 1,000 employees.  Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
21
  In 
addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing 
service.
22
Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the only significant holders of OVS 
certifications or local OVS franchises.
23
The Commission does not have financial or employment 
information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational.
Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes 
that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and some of these are currently 
providing service.
24
  Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to 
operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas.  RCN has sufficient 
revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.  Little financial information is 
available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational.  Given that 
some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the 
Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses 
that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
8. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable 
Operators (PCOs).  SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed 
transmission paths without using any public right-of-way.  They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and 
condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings.  SMATV 
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA’s broad economic census category, “Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers,”
25
which was developed for small wireline firms.
26
  Under this category, 
the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
27
  Census data for 2012 
                                                     
17
47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4).  See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606, para. 135.
18
See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
19
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2012/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
20
13 CFR § 201.121, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
21
See U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none.
22
A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
23
See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07 para. 135. BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art, 
facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network.
24
See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/current-filings-certification-open-video-systems (current as of July 2012).
25
See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
26
Although SMATV systems often use DBS video programming as part of their service package to subscribers, they 
are not included in Section 340’s definition of “satellite carrier.”  See 47 U.S.C. §§ 340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 
U.S.C. §119(d)(6).
27
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
18
indicate that in that year there were 3,117 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications 
carriers.  Of that 3,117, 3,059 operated with 999 or fewer employees.  Based on this data, we estimate that 
a majority of operators of SMATV/PCO companies were small under the applicable SBA size standard.
28
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
9. As indicated above, the NPRM seeks comment on the utility of collecting Form 325 data 
and on whether the Commission should eliminate the Form 325 data collection entirely.  The NPRM also 
seeks comment on ways to improve and modernize the form, if the Commission decides to retain the 
Form 325 data collection.  With respect to each section of Form 325, the NPRM seeks comment on 
whether there is a continued need to collect the information solicited therein to the extent the form is 
retained, and, if not, whether the Commission should eliminate that particular section of the form; on the 
uses of the data and whether such data can be obtained from other sources; and on how the Commission 
can update or modernize the questions, if it decides to retain that particular section of the form.  In order 
to evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that may 
result from the actions proposed in this NPRM, the Commission has sought input from the parties on 
various matters.  For example, the NPRM seeks comment on the burden imposed by the Form 325 filing 
requirement on smaller cable systems; which data, if any, is particularly burdensome on smaller systems 
to provide; and whether the burden on smaller systems to file Form 325 will be significantly reduced if 
the form is streamlined and modernized as proposed in the NPRM.  The NPRM tentatively concludes 
that, at a minimum, the Commission should exempt systems that serve fewer than 5,000 subscribers and 
are not affiliated with a larger operator from filing Form 325, if the form is retained.  The NPRM also 
seeks comment on whether to exempt other smaller systems from having to complete the form or whether 
to maintain the current approach of requiring a sample of smaller cable systems to file the Form 325 each 
year.  Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks to minimize the administrative burden on cable 
television systems, including smaller cable systems, improve the quality and usefulness of Form 325 data 
to reflect technological and other pertinent industry changes, and to ensure that the data collected are 
closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put by the Commission, if the Commission retains the 
form.  We anticipate that the removal or modification of Form 325 reporting requirements will lead to a 
long-term reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on all cable systems, 
including small entities.  
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
10. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account 
the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, 
rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
small entities.”
29
11. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities 
following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM and this IRFA.  Generally, the NPRM 
seeks comment on the burden for cable operators to file Form 325 each year and on the amount of time 
and resources it takes to complete the filing for each cable system.  The NPRM also asks whether the 
benefits and uses of the information collected via Form 325 outweigh the burdens and costs on cable 
systems to file the form.  The NPRM also seeks specific comment on the burden imposed by the Form 
                                                     
28
U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none. 
29
5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
19
325 filing requirement on smaller cable systems.  The NPRM inquires as to which data is particularly 
burdensome on smaller systems to provide and on whether the burden on small systems to file Form 325 
would be significantly reduced if the Commission streamlines and modernizes the form as discussed in 
the NPRM, if it decides to retain the form.  The NPRM tentatively concludes that, at a minimum, the 
Commission should exempt systems that serve fewer than 5,000 subscribers and are not affiliated with a 
larger operator from filing Form 325, if the form is retained.  The NPRM asks whether the Commission 
should exempt other smaller cable systems from having to complete the form or on any alternative 
approaches to alleviate the filing burden on smaller systems, such as requiring smaller systems to file the 
report every few years instead of randomly sampling smaller systems annually.  If the Commission 
decides to retain Form 325, it seeks comment on ways in which it can streamline the current requirements 
and thereby reduce the burdens on small cable system filers.  The Commission’s evaluation of the 
comments filed on these topics as well as on other questions in the NPRM that seek to reduce the burdens 
placed on small cable systems will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final significant alternatives 
it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic 
impact that may occur on small entities.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
12. None
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
20
APPENDIX B
Form 325
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
21
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
22
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
23
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
24
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
25
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: FCC Form 325 Data Collection, MB Docket No. 17-290; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105.
The last time the Commission updated its Form 325 reporting requirements for cable television 
systems, The Sopranos had barely inched into its first season.  And while today the show is still rated by 
critics as one of the best TV dramas of all time, the FCC’s Form 325 has not aged as well.
Over the past 18 years, the cable industry has changed significantly with the evolution of 
technology and changes in service offerings.  Moreover, data about cable operators has become 
increasingly available from various commercial sources.  Many have called for the Commission to 
acknowledge these changes by eliminating burdensome Form 325 annual MVPD reporting requirements.  
This Notice responds to those calls, and invites public input on streamlining or eliminating the data 
collection.  This is the third Notice stemming from our Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, and 
it sends an important message:  Don’t stop believin’ in our commitment to update our rules.
Thank you to Steven Broeckaert, Michelle Carey, Martha Heller, Maria Mullarkey, and Mary 
Beth Murphy of the Media Bureau, and Susan Aaron and Dave Konczal from the Office of General 
Counsel for your efforts on this Notice.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
26
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: FCC Form 325 Data Collection, MB Docket No. 17-290; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105.
A data-driven agency uses and collects that data, to help inform decision-making as it serves the 
public interest. So, taking a look under the hood to determine whether we are asking the right questions 
and collecting the information needed to support the Commission’s work, is a concept I fully endorse. 
As a general matter, I believe more data is better than less, so I will always look twice when an 
annually required form is proposed to be eliminated. For example, data on the number of leased set-top 
boxes deployed in a given cable television system can help us determine whether the goals of Section 629 
are being achieved. Questions about whether a system is overbuilt by a competing cable system can 
provide insight into the state of competition in the video marketplace.
But to ensure that we build a thorough record, I asked my colleagues to include several additional 
questions in this NPRM. Included is whether eliminating Form 325 would hinder the Commission’s 
ability to evaluate the state of competition among cable systems? Whether any information contained in 
Form 325 is specifically helpful to consumers and if it is possible to make this data publicly available 
sooner than the current three-year timeframe?
I thank the Chairman for agreeing to my edits and the Media Bureau staff for teeing up this item.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
27
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: FCC Form 325 Data Collection, MB Docket No. 17-290; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105.
I am pleased to see the Commission take another step forward in modernizing our media 
regulations.  Up this month, we have an annual reporting form that cable providers with over 20,000 
subscribers, as well as a random sampling of the smallest cable providers, must file.  All of this 
information is publicly available from a host of alternative sources, including SNL Kagan, Nielson, and 
Warren Communications, does not reflect today’s competitive video marketplace, does not apply to cable 
competitors, and does not serve an actual purpose.  In fact, it is unclear whether the FCC actually uses the 
data provided.  For these reasons, no commenters argued in favor of maintaining the form. 
Based on the above, it is curious to me why we did not at least tentatively conclude to eliminate 
this form altogether.  Instead, the Commission meticulously analyzes each section of the form.  Because I 
believe the end result will be the same—that the record will support full elimination—I support the item.  
Moreover, I thank the Chairman for adding a few tentative conclusions that key parts of this form should 
be eliminated.    
From a larger perspective, I am pleased to see the Commission tackle an outdated cable 
regulation this month.  I hope we will see more of these in the future.  In fact, we should package a host of 
ideas provided in the record into our next item.  For example, the Commission should eliminate the EEO 
Public Inspection File website posting requirement on cable operators.  The Commission already requires 
cable operators to maintain certain EEO reports in their public files, which are housed in a Commission-
hosted online database.
1
  It is duplicative to also require this information on the company’s website.
2
  
I also support, whenever possible, clarifying in our rules that “written” notice can be electronic 
notice.  This includes notices cable distributors are required to provide to broadcasters under the 
retransmission consent process or in response to consumer complaints, particularly when the consumer 
provides an e-mail address on the complaint and does not request a response in a different format.
3
  
Updating our requirements from paper notices to electronic notices is the essence of modernization.    
I personally think all of these items could be teed up in one Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
order to quickly advance these smaller procedural items.  That way, we can get to some of the bigger 
ideas proposed in the record.  I remind my colleagues that unnecessary costs imposed on businesses that 
we regulate are passed on to the consumer in one form or another, many on a monthly basis.  Therefore, it 
is certainly in the public interest to tackle these issues, and to do so quickly.    
                                                     
1
NCTA Comments at 28–29.  
2
MMTC Reply Comments at 4; ACA Reply Comments 5–7.  
3
NCTA Comments 10–11; see also MMTC Comments at 3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-157
28
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
Re: FCC Form 325 Data Collection, MB Docket No. 17-290; Modernization of Media Regulation 
Initiative, MB Docket No. 17-105.
With this item, we take another step toward reducing unnecessary paperwork burdens.  According 
to the Office of Management and Budget, the costs associated with the Commission’s current information 
collections exceed $790 million annually.  It’s far from clear that this hefty price tag is worth it.  That’s 
why I’m pleased that this Commission has been reevaluating the necessity and utility of a number of our 
reporting requirements.  Today is no different.  Specifically, we seek comment on whether to streamline 
or eliminate FCC Form 325, which the agency has used to collect operational data about cable systems.  
Cable providers have advocated for the elimination of this Form in the media modernization 
proceeding.  They contend that routine collection of this data is unnecessary today, especially when their 
satellite and online video competitors are not saddled with a similar obligation.  They also express 
concern about the burden and uncertainty imposed on smaller cable operators who are randomly selected 
(lucky them) each year to complete the Form.  We should allow these service providers to focus their time 
and resources on competing for customers in today’s dynamic video marketplace, not filling out FCC 
forms.  So I’m glad that we’re initiating this rulemaking to reduce or eliminate this reporting burden and 
this item has my support.  I hope that we will act swiftly based on the record we receive.