WPC  2BJ Z Courier#|x px6X@KX@HP LaserJet 4 PostScriptHPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh' CX@26Fv#|x CourierCourier Bold)GLLASIIP.PRSx  @,8t0;LX@    ЊX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. Our requirement that cable operators otherwise take no action to prevent the use of subscriberowned remote controls also includes CFA/HRRC's suggestion that we prohibit cable operators from changing the infrared codes used to operate the remote control capabilities of the settop devices they employ. This requirement will necessitate that the remote control capabilities of any replacement customer equipment provided to subscribers employ the same infrared codes for remote control that are used with the subscriber's existing settop equipment. This will avoid the need for subscribers to replace remote control units they own if the cable operator changes their settop box. We do not believe this will be a significant burden for cable operators, as they can simply chose replacement equipment that operates with the same infrared codes as their existing  ?P equipment.(P@^G ?  ԍ In quantity orders, cable operators will be able to specify the specific codes to be used in new equipment. This requirement will not prevent cable operators from using new equipment that includes additional infrared codes for new remote control functions that were not included in existing models of equipment. ?64. Consumer Education. In the Notice, we proposed to require cable operators to provide a consumer education program on compatibility matters to their subscribers. This information would be provided to cable subscribers in writing at the time  ?X they first subscribe and at least once a year thereafter.) X^G ?% ԍ After the initiation of service, cable systems would be permitted to choose the time and means by which to meet the annual consumer information requirement. For example, cable systems could choose simply to include the yearly consumer'(0*(( information on compatibility in a mailing with one of their regular billings to subscribers. AsX )0*(( proposed, the consumer education program would include a written notification that, in cases where a settop device is used to receive service, subscribers may not be able to use special features and functions of their TV receivers, including functions that allow the subscriber to:  ? ppView a program on one channel while simultaneously recording a program on another channel;(#p  ?@ ppRecord two or more consecutive programs that appear on different channels; and,(#p  ? ppUse advanced picture generation and display features such as "PictureinPicture," channel review and other functions that necessitate channel selection by the consumer device.(#p The proposed consumer education program would further require cable operators to inform subscribers that some models of TV receivers and VCRs may not be able to receive all of the channels offered by the cable system when connected directly to the cable system. It would also briefly explain the types of channelization incompatibilities subscribers could encounter when connecting their equipment directly to the cable system and offer suggestions for resolving channelization problems. Such solutions could include the use of a settop channel converter device that subscribers could obtain from either the cable operator or a third party retail vendor. @65. We also proposed to require cable operators that offer remote control capability with their settop devices to include in their consumer education program a written notification that subscribers may purchase from other sources a remote control unit that is compatible with the settop devices. Under this proposal, cable systems would be required to list the models of remote control units that are compatible with the settop devices they employ and to provide a list of sources where those models can be obtained in the local area. This list would be required to be current as of no more than 60 days before the yearly mailing of consumer information. A66. The commenting parties generally support our proposal for a consumer information program. For example, the CAG believes the proposed consumer information requirements will satisfy the information requirements of Section 624A(c)(2)(B) and will generally assist cable subscribers in understanding compatibility problems they may encounter. It indicates that although these requirements will apply to the cable industry, the consumer electronics industry will assist in developing educational materials for meeting the new requirements. $ )0*((ԌB67. The commenting parties also request modifications to some of the specific requirements of our proposal. CVS asks that we clarify that the requirement to inform subscribers of the availability of settop converter devices from third party vendors applies to basic converters without descrambling capability and that cable operators do not have to advise their subscribers of the commercial availability of descrambling equipment, including addressable decoders. Greater Media notes that a subscriber's remote control equipment may no longer be functional if the cable system changes his/her converter unit. It requests that in such cases a cable operator's responsibility not extend beyond the need to caution subscribers that such situations may occur from time to time. NYC requests that the consumer education requirements be extended to encourage or require cable operators to produce and carry compatibility education programs, to provide such programs to governmental access channel operators and to refer their subscribers to educational information through announcements in their billing statements. C68. TCI requests that we specify that cable systems electing not to offer their subscribers the option of renting a remote control do not have to comply with the remote control provisions of the consumer education requirements. In this regard, TCI observes that pursuant to new Section 624A(c)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, cable systems will not be allowed to disable the remote control capability of their settop devices. It observes that cable systems could provide remote control capability, and indeed most will have to because most models of settop boxes incorporate that capability, and also choose not to rent remote controls. D69. The commenting parties universally argue that the proposed requirement for cable operators to list all of the specific models of commercially available remote controls that are compatible with their settop devices and specific vendors of those devices is too burdensome. Many parties state that with literally hundreds of models of remote controls on the market, it is simply not practical to expect that accurate lists of compatible remote controls can be compiled or that such lists would remain accurate for any length of time. They also point out that it would be difficult to identify merchants carrying compatible remote control units and to determine relevant market areas. NYC notes that in a city like New York, a list of retailers that carry compatible remotes would be extremely long and would be subject to constant revision. Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc. (Media General) argues that local retailers can adequately communicate the availability of their products to consumers themselves. E70. The commenting parties suggest a number of alternative approaches for informing cable subscribers about the availability' )0*(( of compatible remote controls that are intended to minimize the burden of this task. The CAG recommends that cable operators be required to provide information explaining the different types of remote controls that are compatible with its settop boxes and to compile and distribute lists that show the names and telephone numbers of remote control manufacturers and/or marketers. It also recommends that cable operators be required to supply subscribers periodically with the manufacturers and model numbers of the settop devices they supply. The CAG and Greater Media further state that a good faith omission of a particular manufacturer should not expose a cable operator to legal liability. CVI, Continental, Media General, SMCTC and TCI suggest that we require cable operators to inform subscribers of the manufacturers and model numbers of the equipment they employ and advise them that compatible remote controls may be available from retail suppliers. TCI also proposes that the mailing encourage subscribers to contact the cable operator to ask about the compatibility of a particular device they might be considering. F71. We continue to believe that a requirement for cable operators to provide their subscribers a consumer education program at regular intervals is necessary and desirable to inform subscribers of compatibility issues and solutions and to advise them of the availability of settop converters and remote control units from third parties, as required by Section 17 of the 1992 Cable Act. While we find that our proposed plan for the consumer education program is generally appropriate for these purposes, the final requirements we are adopting include a number of modifications in response to the submissions of the commenting parties. Accordingly, we are adopting our proposed consumer education program with the modifications and clarifications indicated below. G72. First, in response to the concern expressed by CVS, we are clarifying that the requirement to advise subscribers of the availability of settop devices from retailers applies only to basic converters without descrambling or other access control functions. This is consistent with our position, as discussed above, that we do not believe it is desirable to require cable operators to make their security technology available for ownership by the public. Consistent with the requirements for cable operators to offer subscribers supplemental equipment for improving compatibility, cable operators will also be required to advise their subscribers that supplemental equipment for improving compatibility may also be obtained from retail  ?# outlets.*X#^G ?H& ԍ This notification requirement will not apply to hardware used only to control signal access, e.g., settop boxes with multiple descramblers. In response to Greater Media's request regarding a#!*0*(( caution to subscribers about changes in the operation of remote controls if the cable operator changes settop boxes, we note that, as indicated above in paragraph 62, we are prohibiting cable operators from changing the infrared codes used to operate the remote control capabilities of the settop devices they employ. Thus, subscribers will not need to be cautioned about loss of use of their remote controls in such cases. H73. We find that, except as discussed below, the basic structure and content of our proposed consumer education program provides an appropriate balance between the need to properly inform cable subscribers about matters of compatibility and the burden the requirements impose on cable operators. We therefore are not extending the consumer education requirements to include the additional elements suggested by NYC. In response to TCI's request, we are clarifying that cable systems that elect not to offer their subscribers the option of renting a remote control will still have to comply with the remote control provisions of the consumer education requirements. Although Section 17 only refers to systems that rent remote controls, we nonetheless conclude that the interests of ensuring compatibility necessitate that the consumer education provisions regarding remote controls apply to all cable systems that employ subscriber equipment that is capable of being remotely controlled. We also wish to clarify that the requirement for the consumer information program to be provided to subscribers annually does not necessitate that the information be provided to individual subscribers on the anniversary of the date they first subscribed to the service. This requirement may be satisfied through a onceayear mailing to all subscribers. I74. We are persuaded that the proposed requirements for cable operators to list all of the models of commercially available remote control devices that are compatible with their settop devices and vendors that carry those models would, in fact, be impractical and overly burdensome. We therefore are adopting a revised plan that will provide adequate information to cable subscribers about the availability of compatible remote control units while minimizing the burden on cable operators of providing that information. The revised plan is a composite of all the alternatives discussed above. Under this plan, cable operators that employ subscriber equipment that is capable of being remotelycontrolled will be required to include in their consumer education program a written notification that subscribers may purchase from other sources a remote control unit that is compatible with the settop devices. They will also be required to identify the models of settop devices they provide to their subscribers and to include a representative list of the remote control units currently available from retailers that are compatible with the settop devices they employ. Cable operators will be required to make a good faith effort in compiling the list of currently available compatible remote controls; they will'"*0*(( not be held accountable for inadvertent omissions. We are not requiring cable operators to list local retailers that carry compatible remotes. Rather, we encourage cable operators and their industry associations to coordinate with the suppliers of their settop devices and the consumer electronics industry to compile lists of compatible remotes. These lists will be required to be current as of no more than six months before the yearly mailing of consumer information. Finally, cable operators will be required to encourage subscribers to contact the cable operator to ask whether a particular remote control unit would be compatible with the subscriber's settop box. J75. Implementation of Rules for Existing Equipment. In the Notice, we indicated that it appears that the rules for improving compatibility between cable system and consumer equipment can be implemented relatively quickly. We therefore proposed to make these requirements effective six months after we adopt final rules for equipment compatibility. K76. The commenting parties generally agree that these rules can be implemented in the time period proposed in the Notice. The CAG and Time Warner also recommend that we permit scrambling of basic signals that was occurring as of December 1, 1993, when the Notice was released, to continue pending the adjudication of waiver requests filed in a timely manner. The CAG further states that an exception needs to be made regarding provision of dualtuner settop devices by cable systems. The CAG submits that some cable box manufacturers do not yet have such products available and that it may take an additional 12 months before this equipment can be expected to be generally available. It suggests allowing an 18month period before requiring cable systems to provide dualtuner settop boxes. L77. We conclude that the rules for existing equipment generally can be implemented expeditiously, that is, within six months, without imposing substantial burdens on cable operators. These requirements can be met with existing models of supplemental equipment, minor reconfigurations of, or software changes to, existing cable facilities and preparation of relatively brief texts and lists of equipment to inform cable subscribers about compatibility problems and how they can be resolved. Accordingly, the compatibility rules for existing equipment will be effective October 31, 1994. We are, however, providing several exceptions to this schedule. First, we are making the prohibition on scrambling of signals that were not scrambled prior to the enactment of the 1992 Cable Act effective July 31, 1994. We believe that this approximately three month period is an adequate amount of time for cable systems to alter their operations or construction plans to comply with the scrambling prohibition. In accordance with the information provided by the CAG, we will also delay implementation of the requirement for cable operators to provide settop devices with'#*0*(( multiple tuners until October 31, 1995. We advise cable operators that the requirements for other items of supplemental equipment will become effective on the sixmonth schedule. We also find that it will not be difficult for cable systems to comply with the requirements to allow their settop devices that incorporate remote control capability to be operated with subscriberowned remote controls. The requirement for cable system operators to allow their settop boxes to be operated with subscriberowned remote controls therefore will become effective May 31, 1994. Rules for New Equipment "Cable Ready" Consumer Equipment Standards M78. Definition of "Cable Ready" Equipment. In the Notice, we proposed to require that all consumer electronics equipment marketed as "cable ready" or otherwise marketed as intended for connection directly to cable service comply with the new "cable ready" equipment standards. N79. The CAG, Sharp Electronics Corporation (Sharp) and Zenith submit that the proposed definition of "cable ready" equipment is too broad. In statements representative of their position, the CAG indicates that the inclusion of "equipment otherwise marketed as intended for connection directly to cable service" in the definition would preclude consumers from having access to products that are capable of being connected to cable service, but which are not claimed to be "cable ready" as defined in the rules. It argues that the consumer electronics industry should remain free to manufacture and market, and consumers should be free to purchase, products that have none, or only some, of the characteristics to be required of "cable ready" sets. Zenith states that TV equipment that can tune most or all of cable channels, but does not include the other features required under the "cable ready" standard, is needed to continue to serve millions of consumers with a low cost product. The CAG recommends that we simply apply the new standards to those products which are expressly claimed to be "cable ready" or for which the same claim is made using substantially the same language. O80. On the other side, Cox Cable Communications and Newhouse Broadcasting Corporation (Cox), the Joint Cable Commenters and TCI believe that we should require all TV receivers and VCRs that can tune cable channels to comply with the technical standards for "cable ready" equipment. This would prohibit the marketing of consumer TV equipment with an extended tuning range that does not conform to the "cable ready" requirements. These parties argue that the inclusion of tuning capability beyond the broadcast channels in a TV receiver or VCR is tantamount to implying that the device is meant for connection'$*0*(( to cable service. As an alternative to prohibiting equipment that has an extended tuning range but does not fully comply with the "cable ready" standards, the Joint Cable Commenters suggest that we require such equipment be labeled to warn potential purchasers that it may not operate properly when connected directly to cable service.  ?x  P81. TCI and Time Warner believe that we should adopt pointofsale notification and labeling requirements for the consumer electronics industry to advise consumers of potential compatibility problems that may occur if a "noncableready" TV set or VCR is connected directly to cable service. They state that consumer education by cable operators will do little good if the TV receiver or VCR experiencing a problem was purchased by a consumer who was not properly informed of possible problems at the pointofsale. TCI therefore recommends that we require that, prior to purchase, consumers be notified that some features of a "noncableready" TV or VCR may not work or may not be necessary if the unit is connected to a cable system, and that they be encouraged to consult their local cable operator for further information. TCI also suggests that we require that "noncableready" consumer TV equipment be labeled to indicate the tuning range of the device and to inform consumers that certain features of the device may not be compatible with some of the services they may choose to purchase from cable operators. It further proposes that we require manufacturers of thirdparty remote controls to list on a unit's packaging the cable settop devices with which it is compatible. Q82. We agree with the CAG, Sharp and Zenith that our proposed application of the "cable ready" equipment standards would be too broad. We do not believe it is desirable, from the standpoint of either consumers or manufacturers of consumer electronics equipment, to preclude marketing of consumer TV equipment that has some, but not all, of the characteristics of "cable ready" equipment. For example, a TV receiver that has the capability to tune some or all of the cable channels but is not equipped with a Decoder Interface connector or enhanced receiver performance features may be satisfactory for many consumers. In this regard, we observe that not all consumers are affected by equipment compatibility problems and that others may be satisfied with resolving such problems through use of supplemental equipment. Similarly, not all consumers will be affected by emissions ingress and egress problems as a result of connection of their TV equipment directly to cable service. In such cases, consumers should not have to bear the added cost of equipment that provides full compatibility when they do not need it. We therefore will apply the technical standards for "cable ready"$%*0*(( consumer electronics equipment only to devices specifically  ? marketed as "cable ready" or "cable compatible."w+^G ?  ԍ We consider the terms "cable ready" and "cable compatible" to be equivalent and interchangeable. Consistent with the provisions of Section 624A(c)(2) of Section 17 of the 1992 Cable Act, supra, the new technical standards adopted herein will apply to consumer electronics equipment marketed as "cable ready" or "cable compatible."w R83. We nonetheless are concerned that simply limiting the applicability of the "cable ready" standards in this manner and allowing all other products that have varying features intended to enhance their suitability for use with cable service could lead to confusion for consumers about the extent to which the products that are available to them in the market are compatible with cable service. To differentiate "cable ready" products from other products with features intended for use with cable service, we are requiring that consumer TV receivers and VCRs that incorporate features intended to be used with cable service but do not fully comply with the "cable ready" standards be labeled with an advisory that appears on the device and on its packaging. This advisory shall indicate that the product does not fully comply with the FCC's requirements for cable compatible equipment. As a corollary, the new rules also provide that equipment that does not comply with the "cable ready" standards may not be marketed with terminology that describes the device as "cable ready" or "cable compatible," or that otherwise conveys the impression that the device is fully compatible with cable  ?0 service.   S84. We are not extending the labeling and advisory requirements to remote control units. These units are not subject to requirements that they have the capability to command cable settop devices and therefore may not be intended for use with a cable settop device. We also believe that consumer electronics manufacturers will have an incentive to advise consumers of which, if any, settop devices their remote controls are able to command. T85. Channel Tuning. In the Notice, we proposed to require that "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs have the capability to tune all cable channels over a frequency range of 54 MHz to 1 GHz in accordance with the cable channel identification plan specified in the new EIA IS132 standard developed by the  ? JEC., @^G ?% ԍ The new channel plan is an amended version of the former EIA/ANSI IS6 channel plan. This new standard is known as the Electronic Industry Association's "Standard Cable Television Channel Identification Plan, IS132, May 1994" (EIA IS132). We'+0*(( note that EIA/ANSI IS6 accommodates full 1GHz cable operation and that the new, amended channel plan maintains the former channel allocations for frequencies up to 1002 MHz. The new EIA IS132 channel plan specifies frequency slots and assigns each a number for frequencies up to 1002 MHz and specifies a methodology for creating additional channels at higher frequencies. For example, a 1 GHz system using the new plan, would operate between 54 and 1002 MHz and would have the potential for 158 active channels. The CAG points out that EIA IS132 does not require cable systems to deliver, or TV equipment to tune, any particular number of channels. We also requested comment on whether it might be&( ,0*(( desirable to provide a "migration plan" to full 1 GHz tuning capability that would first require cable channel tuning capability somewhat lower than 1 GHz, such as 750 MHz, and then later require full 1GHz capability. U86. The commenting parties addressing this issue support the use of EIA IS132 as the standard channel plan for cable service and the tuning standard for "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs. They generally agree that use of this plan will minimize the need to use settop converters for tuning purposes. These parties differ, however, with regard to their views on the upper frequency to which "cable ready" equipment should be required to tune. The CAG recommends that "cable ready" consumer equipment be required to tune to 800 MHz, rather than 1 GHz. In support of the CAG's position, Zenith states that a requirement to tune to frequencies higher than 800 MHz would be unnecessary with the vast majority of cable systems in view of the trends in technology towards digital compression, which reduces the need for cable systems to use higher frequencies. Zenith also submits that a higher minimum upper tuning requirement would add to the cost of consumer electronics equipment. It submits that the tuning range requirement could be increased in the future if appropriate. CVI recommends that "cable ready" equipment be required to tune frequencies up to 750 MHz and that devices with digital and/or HDTV capability be able to tune channels up to 1 GHz. CVS, Mitsubishi, NYC, SMCTC and TCI believe that all new TV receiver equipment should be capable of tuning up to 1 GHz to avoid the renewed use of settop converters when cable systems are inevitably built to operate up to that frequency. Mitsubishi believes that no migration path to the higher frequency range is needed. NYC states that a migration plan would only serve to confuse consumers. V87. GI submits that it is possible that digital transmission channels might use a bandwidth larger or smaller than 6 MHz and that we therefore should apply the EIA IS132 channel plan only to analog video signals. TCI submits that while it supports a 1 GHz tuning requirement, it believes the best solution would be to require "cable ready" TV receivers and'( ,0*(( VCRs to incorporate modular tuners. It states that adding modularity to consumer equipment would protect consumers from premature obsolescence caused by the unsynchronized cycles of the cable and consumer electronics industries. W88. Bell Atlantic submits that use of frequencies below 54 MHz is feasible for cable service and that use of these frequencies may be preferable for digital video services. It suggests that we extend the lower range of the channel tuning capability of consumer electronics equipment to include the 5 to 54 MHz frequency band. X89. We continue to believe that adoption of the EIA IS132 channel plan as the standard cable television channel plan will further compatibility between cable systems and consumer TV receivers and VCRs. As noted by the commenting parties, adherence to this standard will minimize the need to use settop converters for tuning purposes. This standard also provides channels across all frequencies from 54 MHz up to 1 GHz and beyond and is consistent with the channel plan currently used by most cable systems. We concur with the CAG and Zenith that 800 MHz seems adequate as the minimum required upper tuning frequency for cable channels. In this regard, we agree with Zenith that 800 MHz is an appropriate choice for this standard in light of expectations for the upper range of frequencies that will be used by cable systems and the fact that a higher tuning requirement would unnecessarily add to the cost of consumer TV sets and VCRs. In considering 800 MHz as the minimum upper tuning requirement, we also observe that currently all TV broadcast receivers are required by our rules to be capable of receiving all channels allocated to the television broadcast service. Under this requirement, TV receivers are required to tune up to and including UHF channel 69, or 800806 MHz. Inasmuch as TV receivers normally incorporate a single tuner for both cable and broadcast channels and the appropriate upper range for cable is essentially the same as the existing broadcast tuning requirement, we believe it would be appropriate to adopt the minimum tuning range for broadcast channels as the upper cable channel tuning requirement for "cable ready" equipment. Accordingly, we will require "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs to tune to cable channels specified by the EIA IS132 standard up to a minimum frequency range of 806MHz. We will, of course, monitor developments in this area and take appropriate action in the future to alter the minimum tuning range requirement for "cable ready" equipment if necessary. Y90. New "cable ready" consumer TV equipment will not be required to use the EIA IS132 channel plan for reception of digital signals. As discussed below, we will consider an appropriate channel plan for digital cable service in the context of our future proceeding on cable digital cable transmission standards. We also do not believe it is desirable to require'(,0*(( that "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs incorporate modular tuners. While manufacturers will have discretion to include modular tuners as features of new equipment, we do not find that there is sufficient likelihood that an alternative channel plan to EIA IS132 will arise to warrant requiring modular tuners in "cable ready" consumer equipment. Finally, we see no indication that cable services will be provided on channels in the frequency range 5 to 54 MHz. We therefore will not extend the tuning standard for "cable ready" equipment to this area of the spectrum. Z91. Receiver Performance Standards. In the Notice, we proposed various technical performance standards for "cable ready" consumer electronics equipment. These proposals were designed both to ensure proper operation of "cable ready" TV receivers, VCRs, and other consumer TV equipment with cable service and to prevent such equipment from causing interference to cable systems. In particular, our proposals included technical standards to protect "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs against adjacent channel interference, tuner overload and direct pickup of undesired signals. We also proposed standards for consumer electronic device signals conducted onto the cable system, radiated emissions, input selector switch isolation and bypass switch attenuation. The CAG submitted detailed comments on the proposed technical standards that include suggestions for several changes to the proposed standards and measurement  ?P procedures.-xP^G ? ԍ The CAG asked Working Group II (WGII) of the JEC to examine tuner performance specifications and the specific tuner performance criteria proposed in the Notice. A copy of WGII's comments and recommendations was appended to CAG's comments. CAG states that the comments and recommendations of WGII represent a consensus of the both the cable television and consumer electronics industries. CAG indicates that the technical standards it recommends for "cable ready" equipment are the result of a consensus agreement among the consumer equipment manufacturers and cable system operators. We are according CAG's comments considerable weight since they generally appear to be based on sound engineering analysis and to represent an industry consensus. Each of the various elements of the new technical standards are discussed below. [92. A. Adjacent Channel Interference. To reduce interference from signals on adjacent channels, we proposed to require that "cable ready" equipment not exceed a criterion of "just perceptible" interference to the desired signal from an adjacent channel signal whose visual carrier level is 3 dB abovex)-0*((  ? the visual carrier level of the desired signal..X^G ?X ԍ A 3 dB higher adjacent channel signal corresponds to the variation in adjacent channel signals permitted under Section 76.605(4)(i) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(4)(i). We also requested comments on alternate test methods that do not rely on subjective observations of the television display. \93. The CAG indicates that, although adjacent channel performance is a combined response to lower and upper adjacent visual, chroma, and aural signals, industry experience has shown that interference from the lower adjacent aural carrier predominates. CAG also notes that, in practice the aural carrier of TV signals carried on cable systems is generally between 10 and 17 dB below the visual carrier signal level. Therefore, it believes that a standard based on a single unmodulated interfering carrier located 1.5 MHz lower in frequency and 10 dB lower in signal level than the visual carrier of the desired NTSC channel is sufficient to achieve our goal of adequate adjacent channel performance. In addition, the CAG recommends that we evaluate compliance through objective measurements made at the TV receiver IF output port rather than subjective observations of "just perceptible" interference. Specifically, CAG submits that a 55 dB suppression ratio, as measured at the unfiltered IF output port of the television receiver, would be equivalent to "just perceptible" interference and therefore would be appropriate. ]94. We find that CAG's statements and recommendations regarding the adjacent channel performance standard are technically sound. We agree with the CAG's position that measurement of lower adjacent channel interference will provide an adequate indication of the adjacent channel performance of a "cable ready" television receiver. Further, we find that the standard proposed by the CAG is generally equivalent to our proposal and will provide sufficient adjacent channel interference protection. We also observe that the CAG's proposed measurement method would be more accurate and reliable than our proposed method because it is based on objective, rather than subjective, tests. Objective testing would also be less burdensome for manufacturers, since these tests can be automated easily. Accordingly, we are adopting the standard and testing methods suggested by the CAG. ^95. B. Tuner Overload. To avoid tuner overload, we proposed to require that the tuners of "cable ready" consumer devices suppress distortion products on any frequency in the *.0*((  ? desired channel at least 55 dB below the visual carrier./X^G ?X ԍ Tuner overload results from the presence of many strong signals that interact and degrade the performance of the receiver. We also invited recommendations for a measurement procedure. The CAG proposes a procedure for measuring tuner overload and, based on this procedure, recommends that we require 51 dB suppression rather than 55 dB. It further recommends that the standard apply only for signals up to 750 MHz. _96. The CAG's proposed test method calls for measuring the amplitude of spurious signals falling within the 6 MHz wide unfiltered IF relative to the amplitude of any tuned carrier. The CAG suggests that measurements be performed with a test signal that exposes the RF input of a "cable ready" television receiver to a comb of unmodulated carriers. The individual unmodulated carriers would have amplitudes of +15 dBmV and be located at all possible visual carrier frequencies in the standard plan delineated in the EIA IS132 standard. The CAG states that the +15 dBmV amplitude for the unmodulated carriers corresponds to the maximum amplitude of signals carried on cable signals. It also states that the comb of CW signals is appropriate for this test due to the mixing that can occur with multiple signals carried simultaneously on cable systems. The CAG believes it would be appropriate to require 51 dB suppression of distortion products with this test procedure, rather than our proposed 55 dB standard, because the average power levels of normal NTSC television signals is 6 dB lower than the CW carriers used for the measurements. `97. The CAG believes that the upper limit of the comb test signal should be 750 MHz because digital, rather than analog signals, will likely be used in cable systems that operate above this frequency. It states that the signal strength of digital transmissions is likely to be lower than NTSC analog transmissions by 510 dB. It further submits that digital signals will be more benign because the visual effect is more like a slight increase in noise rather than a discernable beat pattern in the picture. CAG also believes that if analog signals are used at these higher frequencies, they will be attenuated much more than lower frequency signals due to the differential loss in the drop cable. a98. We find that the test method suggested by the CAG is an adequate and appropriate means for measuring tuner overload performance. We are not persuaded, however, that the suppression level for distortion products should be 51 rather than 55 dB. The CAG's suggested test method initially provides for input test signals that are 5 dB lower than the maximum limit of the amplitude of individual visual carriers (+20 dBmV) for cable#+/0*((  ? systems specified in EIA Draft Standard IS23.Y0^G ?X ԍ See Electronic Industries Association "RF Interface Specifications for Television Receiving Devices and Cable Television Systems, EIA Draft Standard IS23" (EIA IS23). The specifications of this standard are used by the cable industry and consumer electronics manufacturers to provide an effective interface between cable service and consumer electronics equipment that are intended for connection to cable service. EIA IS23 provides that the maximum visual carrier level of individual signals carried on a cable system should be not more than +20 dBmV.Y Accordingly, we are adopting our proposal that the tuners of "cable ready" consumer equipment suppress distortion on any frequency in the desired channel products at least 55 dB below the visual carrier. We generally accept CAG's argument that tuner overload need not be tested at higher frequencies. However, we will require testing up to 806 MHz, rather than CAG's proposal of 750 MHz, because this corresponds to the required tuning capability of "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs. b99. C. DPU Interference. To address direct pickup (DPU) interference, we proposed to require that "cable ready" equipment not exceed a criterion of "just perceptible" interference in the presence of a 100 mV/m field generated by a CW source. The CAG suggests an alternative standard that employs measurements of interfering signal levels at the TV receiver IF referenced to specific carriertointerferer ratios, rather than subjective observations of "just perceptible" interference. Under the CAG's proposed test method, the receiver under test would be exposed to an external ambient radio frequency field whose amplitude is 100 mV/m and whose frequency is 2.55 MHz above the visual carrier of the channel to which the receiver is tuned. Tests would be performed with the receiver tuned to each of six EIA IS132 television channels (two each in the low VHF, high VHF and UHF broadcast band) whose individual RF levels are 0 dBmV. Susceptibility measurements would be made by rotating the unit under test 360 degrees until the maximum response in the unfiltered IF passband is obtained. The CAG recommends that with this measurement procedure, we require suppression level on each test channel, as measured at the unit's IF output terminals, to be at least 45 dB below the response of the desired channel, i.e., a 10 dB reduction from the 55 dB proposed reference level. It further recommends that we require that the average of the suppression obtained for all of the channels tested be at least 50 dB, i.e., a 5 dB reduction. At frequencies between 800 MHz and 1002 MHz, in the case of equipment designed to tune in that range, the CAG suggests that tests be performed on six EIA IS132 channels spaced approximately equally throughout the band. It recommends that the required suppression in this range be at,` 00*(( least 35 dB on each individual channel and at least 40 dB for the average suppression of all channels measured. c100. The CAG believes that its proposed standard and measurement criteria are consistent with our proposed performance criteria. In recommending requirements for suppression ratios that are less than 55 dB, the CAG submits test data indicating that susceptibility is strongly dependent on receiver orientation. It observes that, in conditions of actual use, receivers will be oriented randomly with respect to external fields, so that the average susceptibility will certainly be less than the tested maximum. It also states that the 100 mV/m external ambient field was based on signals present outdoors and does not take into account the average attenuation effects of buildings and other structures. d101. CVI believes that it would be more appropriate to use 250 mV/m as the maximum external ambient field strength for measuring DPU performance. In support of this proposal, CVI submits field intensity data measured in five communities. It claims that these measurements, which were made outdoors, show that the field intensity was greater than 250 mV/m in 19 percent of the samples and greater than 100 mV/m in 85 percent of the samples. CVI acknowledges, however, that some additional signal attenuation will occur due to structural shielding. It further states that although none of its submitted data included measurements made on UHF stations, it believes that field intensities from UHF stations tend to be higher than VHF stations. CVI believes this evidence supports a 250 mV/m field intensity for the DPU performance standard. In its reply comments, Zenith states that protecting consumer TV equipment against DPU in the presence of 250 mV/m external ambient field would not be technically practicable and is beyond what is economically justifiable in light of any potential advantage for consumers. SMCTC concurs with our proposal for DPU above 54 MHz, but recommends the requirements include a 3 volts/m immunity standard below 30 MHz to protect against AM broadcast stations, Amateur Radio and Citizens Band stations which all could be in close proximity to cable subscriber. #x6X@`7cX@# e102. We agree with the CAG that the direct measurement of DPU interference at the TV receiver IF is preferable to subjective measurements based on "just perceptible" interference. We further agree with the CAG that, given the directional variation in receiver DPU performance, it is appropriate to establish standards for both individual channel DPU performance and the average of DPU performance for all measured channels. We also find the less stringent performance standards suggested by the CAG are appropriate in light of the fact that signal levels outdoors can be expected to be attenuated by walls and other structural components at indoor locations. The average susceptibility of the receiver in the home will in all'-00*(( probability be less than that determined under the proposed test method. f103. While we recognize that ambient external fields may sometimes exceed 100 mV/m, as CVI indicates, we nonetheless agree with the CAG that 100 mV/m is the appropriate standard to specify for the level of the external ambient field. In this regard, we are concerned that a more stringent standard might result in significantly higher prices for "cable ready" equipment that would discourage consumers from purchasing these units. We also find that the level of protection that would be provided under the standard suggested by the CAG would be a significant improvement over the current DPU performance of consumer TV receivers and VCRs. The 100 mV/m level for external ambient field strength provides an appropriate balance of the competing concerns of the equipment cost and DPU protection. We also recognize CVI's point that field intensities in the UHF broadcast band may be somewhat higher than VHF. However, UHF fields also suffer greater attenuation through walls and other structural components. We therefore are not adopting different standards for ambient fields on UHF frequencies. We also are not adopting SMCTC's proposal to extend the DPU standards adopted herein to frequencies below 54 MHz, as this area of the spectrum is not within the tuning range of receivers being considered in this  ? proceeding . Accordingly, we are adopting standards to protect against DPU interference on "cable ready" consumer electronics equipment and associated test methods as suggested by the CAG. The standards we are adopting will require measurement of DPU performance of "cable ready" equipment on frequencies up to 806 MHz, in accordance with our decision to specify 806 MHz as the minimum upper tuning range for "cable ready" equipment. g104. D. Image Channel Interference. In the Notice, we indicated that it was our belief that consumer equipment that complies with the DPU ingress standard would also be less likely to experience interference from both cable and offtheair signals on the "image frequencies," i.e., frequencies that are removed 14 and 15 channels from the desired channel. The CAG states that when conventional 45 MHz IF frequencies are used in receivers along with highside local oscillator (LO) injection, the receiver will have a potential response to the 15th higher channel on the system regardless of the DPU shielding provided. The CAG further states that image channel response is primarily a function of the internal circuitry design of the receiver, not the external shielding efficiency, as both desired and image channels are received on the same cable. Thus, it believes that separate requirements are needed for image channel performance. h105. The CAG suggests that receivers whose conversion frequencies are such that a potential image frequency falls within the cable system bandwidth should be required to reject the image signal by at least 60 dB from 54 MHz up to and'.00*(( including 750 MHz. In this case, the CAG's recommended suppression is 5 dB more stringent than the 55 dB equivalent of "just perceptible" interference. The extra 5 dB is intended to provide for the variations in cable system signal levels that are permitted in a 1 GHz bandwidth system under Part 76 of our  ? rules.O1^G ?@ ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(4)(ii).O Although Part 76 allows a maximum variation of 17 dB in a 1 GHz system, the CAG contends that in a wellmaintained cable system, the variation over approximately 90 MHz (15 channels) will be considerably less. From 750 MHz up to and including 1002 MHz, the CAG recommends a minimum of 50 dB rejection. The CAG's relaxed specification at higher frequencies reflects its previously stated position that these frequencies are likely to be used for low amplitude digital signals. i106. We agree with CAG's position that an image rejection performance standard is needed for consumer equipment sold as "cableready." In this regard, we are persuaded that DPU specifications will not prevent image problems in consumer equipment. We also agree that, in order to allow for variations in cable signal levels permitted under Part 76 of our rules, a standard that is 5 dB more stringent than the equivalent of "just perceptible" interference is justified for this standard. The CAG's recommendation for reducing the image channel suppression standard for frequencies above 750 MHz also appears reasonable in light of the expectation that signals on frequencies in this range will be of relatively lower amplitude. Further, to be consistent with our decision on the minimum upper tuning requirement for "cable ready" equipment, upper limit of the image rejection standard will be 806 MHz. It seems reasonable to extend this limit from 750 MHz up to the upper tuning range limit. Accordingly, we are requiring that "cable ready" equipment suppress image signals by at least 60 dB from 54 MHz up  ? to and including 806 MHz.2` X^G ? ԍ In testing for compliance with this standard, image rejection shall be the ratio of desired to undesired RF carriers measured within the IF passband of the receiver. The undesired signal shall be a CW carrier equal in amplitude to the desired channel visual carrier and located 90 MHz above the visual carrier frequency of the channel to which the receiver is tuned. The desired signal shall be an NTSC signal with visual carrier levels of 0 dBmV and +15 dBmV modulated with a 10 IRE flat field and an unmodulated aural carrier level that is 10 dB below the visual carrier level. Tests are to be conducted with the receiver tuned to ten evenly spaced channels specified in the EIA542 channel plan. j107. E. Conducted Emissions. In the Notice, we proposed to require that the level of RF emissions conducted onto a cableX/ 20*(( system by a "cable ready" consumer device be no more than 37dBmV, referenced to 75 ohms, over the frequency range 54 MHz to 1002MHz. The CAG believes our proposed conducted emissions limit is too stringent. It argues that our proposal is based on worst case conditions that are not likely to occur and fails to take into account variations in the factors that cause conducted interference. For example, it notes that our proposed limit assumes that the cable subscriber is receiving the minimum signal level of 0 dB required under our rules. The CAG submits that in most cases the signal delivered to the subscriber is considerably stronger. It observes that we also assumed that the cable system provides the minimum isolation between subscriber drops required under the rules. It submits that in most cases greater isolation is provided. The CAG further notes that there is considerable variability in the levels and the frequencies at which internally generated emissions are produced in equipment. It states that this fact should be weighed against the low probability that other nearby cable subscribers will be tuned to a channel receiving the interfering emissions. The CAG therefore argues that it is likely that most conducted emissions from consumer TV equipment will be well below the proposed 37 dBmV limit. The CAG also claims that manufacturers will design their products with sufficient compliance margin to account for variations in performance across production units.  ?  k108. The CAG recommends that we adopt two different standards for conducted emissions: one for emissions caused by signals generated internally within the device and another for emissions caused by retransmission of signals introduced into the device from external sources. For conducted emissions caused by local oscillator emissions and other signals internally generated within the consumer's device, CAG proposes the following limits: From 54 MHz up to and including 300 MHz -26 dBmV From 300 MHz up to and including 450 MHz 20 dBmV From 450 MHz up to and including 1,002 MHz 15 dBmV Devices would be required to comply with these standards on any frequency in the applicable ranges. Further, CAG proposes that in the band 450 MHz to 1002 MHz, in addition to allowing a 15 dBmV maximum level for any individual frequency, we require that the average of measurements made on six channels equally spaced in frequency be no greater than -20dBmV. The CAG submits that its proposals for less stringent standards take the above factors into account. In addition, it states that the progressive relaxations in the standards with increasing frequency are based on the increased cable drop losses that occur at higher frequencies. l109. For conducted emissions caused by retransmission of external signals, the CAG recommends that we limit conducted signals on any frequency to less than 26 dBmV when the device is'020*(( operated in an external ambient RF field whose frequency varies between 54 MHz and 1002 MHz and whose field strength is 100 mV/m. CAG states that the same considerations that underlie its proposal that we specify -26 dBmV as the standard for conducted emissions caused by internally generated signals also apply in the case of conducted emissions induced by external sources. m110. GI supports the CAG's proposal for conducted emissions standards. CVI agrees with the CAG that the proposed limit is more stringent than necessary for TV receivers and VCRs with double conversion tuners that generally have their local oscillator above the highest frequency the units are capable of tuning. However, for single conversion tuners, which typically have their local oscillator 45.75 MHz above the tuned channel, CVI supports the Notice's tighter standard of 37 dBmV. Greater Media and CVS, with support from the Joint Commenting Parties and SMCTC, argue that the we should extend the frequency range of the conducted emissions standard down to 5 MHz. These parties state that cable systems are beginning to operate twoway transmission technologies that use frequencies between 5 MHz and 30 MHz for subscriber return signals which need protection from conducted emissions produced by subscriber equipment. n111. We agree with CAG that the worst case conditions that underlie the proposed conducted emissions standard are not typical of cable system operation and that the proposed standard therefore would be unnecessarily protective and too burdensome for consumer equipment manufacturers. We also concur with the CAG that less stringent limits on conducted emissions in accordance with its plan for internally generated emissions, as indicated above, would be appropriate to minimize interference from consumer equipment in light of the operating characteristics of a typical cable system and the fact that losses through cable drops increase with frequency, and therefore provide additional attenuation between subscribers. As losses through drop cables will affect both internally generated and externally induced interference signals, we will apply the same standard for conducted emissions irrespective of whether the source of the conducted signal is internal or external. o112. Different test methods are needed for internal and external sources of conducted emissions. In this regard, we are specifying that measurements for conducted emissions caused by internal sources are to be made with the device operating in a shielded room. Since the RF ingress methods and sources will be the same as in the case of DPU interference, measurements for conducted emissions from external sources will be made when the device is operated in an external ambient RF field whose field strength is 100 mV/m, following the same test conditions to be used in measuring receiver DPU. '120*((Ԍp113. We disagree with CVI that it would be appropriate to apply different conducted emissions standards based on the type of frequency conversion employed in the tuner of a device. We recognize that a device with a double conversion tuner incorporating an IF outside the frequency range of cable system operation could be expected to produce lower levels of conducted emissions in the applicable ranges of the standards. However, if such a device were, in fact, to generate high levels of conducted emissions, whatever their source, those emissions would have the potential to cause the same harm to other subscribers of the cable system as emissions from a device with a standard tuner. We also are not persuaded that we should extend the applicability of the conducted emissions standard to frequencies below 54 MHz, as suggested by Media General and CVS. These parties have not provided any information showing that there is a real risk of interference to cable system operation from conducted emissions in this frequency range. It is not likely that conducted emissions from consumer equipment will be strong enough to interfere with subscriber return signals that are intended to reach the cable system headend. In addition, the standards we are adopting address an entirely different interference scenario, i.e., interference from one subscriber to another, not interference from a subscriber to cable return transmission signals. Accordingly, we will not adopt a limit on conducted emissions below 54 MHz. q114. F. Radiated Emissions. In the Notice, we proposed to require that "cable ready" units be tested to comply with the existing Part 15 limits on radiated emissions from unintentional  ? radiators when connected to cable service.3^G ? ԍ The Part 15 emissions limits that apply to consumer TV equipment are set forth in Section 15.109(a) of the rules. See 47 C.F.R. 15.109(a). The tests for radiated emissions when connected to a cable signal would be in addition to the existing tests required for radiated emissions when connected to an antenna input. See 47 C.F.R.15.31(n). We proposed to require that compliance be demonstrated with input signals on six cable channels distributed evenly over the frequency range of 54 MHz to 1002 MHz and with the signal level of the input cable signal varied from 0 to 25 dBmV. We asked for comment as to whether such tests should be required over the entire range from 0 to 25 dBmV, or whether testing only at the two extremes would suffice. We also proposed to apply these performance and testing  ? requirements to cable system terminal devices (CSTDs).4@^G ?$ ԍ Cable system terminal devices are TV interface devices that serve, as their primary function, to connect a cable system to a TV receiver or other subscriber premise equipment. See 47 C.F.R. 15.3. These devices are subject to the general Part 15 emissions limits for unintentional radiators, as set forth in'30*(( Section 15.109(a) of the rules. See 47 C.F.R. 15.109(a). 2X40*((Ԍr115. As an alternative to our proposed use of the Part 15 radiated emissions limits, the CAG proposes that we employ the more stringent radiated emissions limits for cable systems specified in Part 76 of our rules as the standard for reradiated  ?  emissions of cable signals by "cable ready" equipment.5x X^G ? ԍ The radiated emissions standards for cable systems are set forth in Section 76.605(a)(12). These standards provide that radiated emissions on frequencies less than 54 MHz and over 316MHz must not exceed 15 mV/m at 30 meters and that radiated emissions on frequencies over 54 MHz up to and including 216 MHz must not exceed 20 mV/m at 3 meters. See 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(12). It contends that signal leakages, whether from the cable plant or from receivers connected to that plant, are required to be within the limits set in Part 76, rather than Part 15. CAG also recommends a receiver input cable signal level of +15 dBmV for compliance testing. This corresponds to the maximum input level provided to subscriber equipment by typical cable systems. The CAG further suggests that, where a device is furnished with interconnecting cables, radiated emissions be measured with those cables attached in a normal configuration. s116. The Joint Cable Commenters support CAG's contention that Part 76 radiated emissions limits should apply to consumer equipment connected to a cable system. They also agree that measurements of radiated emissions should be made with an input signal level of +15 dBmV. SMCTC believes that our proposal to require testing on only six evenly spaced channels for radiated emissions testing is inadequate for determining compliance. It proposes that testing be conducted using a full complement of 158 potential cable channels. t117. While we agree with the CAG that application of the Part 76 emission limits to "cable ready" receivers may provide slightly greater assurance than the Part 15 limits that "cable ready" TV equipment does not cause harmful interference, we are not convinced that such a standard is necessary. As we observed in our previous decision to apply the Part 15 radiated emissions standards to CSTDs, the emissions characteristics of consumer TV receiving devices differ distinctly from those of a cable system  ? distribution plant.u6^G ?# ԍ See Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 85301, 2 FCC Rcd 3304 (1987).u The Part 76 emission limits were designed to apply to open air cable installations where radiated emissions would not be attenuated significantly by surrounding structures. On the other hand, radiation from television receiving equipment, which are point sources, is subject to3 60*(( propagation losses that are greater than the cable system as a whole. Emissions by TV receiving equipment are also attenuated by the structure within which it is located. We note that CSTDs, which connect to cable systems and are currently allowed the higher emission levels of Part 15, have not been a threat to the operation of cable systems. We therefore find that it would be unnecessarily burdensome and costly to require manufacturers of "cable ready" TV receiving equipment to comply with tighter emission standards when their devices pose no greater threat than cable settop boxes and other CSTDs. Accordingly, we are adopting our proposal to apply the radiated emission limits of Section 15.109(a) to "cable ready" consumer TV equipment. u118. We also find that a single input cable signal level of +15 dBmV, as suggested by the CAG, is appropriate for testing "cable ready" equipment for compliance with the radiated emissions standard, rather than a range of 0 dBmV to +25 dBmV. We therefore will require that a +15 dBmV NTSC signal be used as the input cable signal in testing for compliance with this standard. We are not adopting SMCTC's suggestion that we require radiated emissions tests to be performed with the device tuned to each of the cable channels the device is capable of tuning. Such testing would be burdensome for manufacturers and SMCTC has not provided any technical information or other grounds that would indicate the need for performing the test with a full complement of 158 potential cable channels. We therefore will require that compliance be demonstrated with input signals on six EIA IS132 cable channels distributed evenly over the frequency range of 54 MHz to 1002 MHz. v119. G. Input Selector Switch Isolation. RF emissions can also leak from and/or enter into cable systems through input selector switches (also called A/B switches) used to alternate between service from a cable system, an antenna for reception of broadcast signals, or other equipment such as a VCR or videodisc player, if the switches do not provide adequate isolation between their various ports. Under the existing Part 15 rules, input selector switches used to alternate between cable and antenna service that are included in TV receivers and TV interface devices, such as VCRs and CSTDs, are required to comply with  ?@ isolation standards.7 @^G ?! ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 15.115(c) and 15.117(h). These sections currently provide that transfer switches must provide 80 dB of isolation for signals in the frequency range 54 to 216 MHz and 60 dB for signals at frequencies from 216 to 550 MHz. In the Notice, we proposed to clarify that the input selector switch isolation standards would apply to all transfer switches used to alternate between a cable service and other inputs, including standalone units that are not part of a "cable ready" TV receiver or a TV interface device. We also noted that the input selector switch isolation rules currently(#470*(( are specified only for frequencies up to 550 MHz. In considering this issue, we recognized that it becomes more difficult to achieve high levels of isolation at higher frequencies and that the amount of isolation needed also decreases with increasing frequency. We therefore requested comment on the appropriate standard or standards to specify for the frequency range from 550 MHz to 1002 MHz to conform with cable service that might use channels up to this frequency range. w120. The CAG recommends that we only extend the isolation requirements for input selector switches used with cable service up to 800 MHz. It submits that switch isolation can be expected to deteriorate gradually above 800 MHz. The CAG further observes that TV antennas connected to an input selector switch are inefficient radiators above 800 MHz. It therefore suggests that we require input selector switches used with cable service to provide 55 dB isolation between ports in the frequency range 550-800 MHz. CVS supports extending the Part 15 isolation requirements to frequencies up to 1 GHz. NYC also supports extending the Part 15 isolation standards for input selector switches up to 1 GHz and applying these requirements to all selector switches, including standalone units. SMCTC believes that the current requirement for 60 dB should be extended from 550 MHZ up to 1002 MHz. x121. We continue to believe that it is necessary to extend the isolation requirements for input selector switches used with cable service to higher frequencies and to apply these requirements to all such switches, including standalone units. We also concur with the CAG that 55 dB isolation will provide adequate protection against leakage of higher frequency cable signals. We further recognize the difficulties inherent in designing economical switches that can provide a high degree of isolation at frequencies above 800 MHz and agree with the CAG that the broadcast receiving antennas connected to these switches can be expected to be less effective radiators above 800 MHz. In view of the expectation that cable systems generally will not use higher frequencies, there also does not appear to be a need to ensure that these switches provide significant isolation above the 800 MHz range. Accordingly, we are adopting a requirement that input selector switches used to alternate between cable service and an antenna provide 55 dB isolation between input ports over the frequency range 550 MHz up to and including  ?! 806MHz.8X!^G ?# ԍ We are specifying the slightly higher 806 MHz upper limit to be consistent with the upper minimum tuning requirement for "cable ready" equipment decided above. We are also clarifying that isolation requirements for input selector switches used with cable service apply to all such switches, including standalone units. #580*((Ԍy122. H. Attenuation of Bypass Switches and Other Devices. In the Notice, we proposed to require that switches and other devices, such as filters that are intended to be used to bypass cable settop devices or other equipment, not attenuate the input cable signals more than 6 dB at any output port. This proposal was intended to ensure that acceptable service is obtained when using supplemental equipment to improve compatibility between cable service and consumer equipment. The requirement would apply both to devices that are built into TV receivers and VCRs and to standalone bypass switches and filters. z123. The CAG and NYC support our proposal to establish a standard for attenuation at the output ports of bypass switches. CAG also suggests that we allow a slightly higher limit for attenuation of signals on frequencies above 550 MHz. It recommends that attenuation be limited to 6 dB in the frequency range 54550 MHz, and 8 dB in the range 5501002 MHz. The CAG states that higher losses should be permitted at higher frequencies because component losses, plus cabling and possibly switching losses, generally increase at the higher frequencies. SMCTC, however, believes that the amount of attenuation through input selector switches should be no greater than 1 dB. {124. We find our proposed 6 dB attenuation limit is appropriate and adequate to ensure acceptable service through bypass switches and filters from signals on frequencies at and below 550 MHz. We also believe a slightly higher limit is appropriate for signals on frequencies above 550 MHz for the reasons indicated by the CAG. The 1 dB standard suggested by SMCTC is unnecessarily stringent for switches and inappropriate for splitters. While 1 dB attenuation may be an achievable performance level for some switches, a less stringent 6 dB standard will provide a margin for variations in design and production and still ensure that satisfactory signal levels pass through switches. We observe that nonamplified signal splitters, by their design, divide the input signal strength among two or more output ports, so that the signal levels at individual output ports generally will be substantially lower than the input signal. Accordingly, we will require that switches and other devices intended to be used to bypass cable settop devices (or the internal circuitry in such devices) and other equipment not attenuate input cable signals at any output port more than 6 dB for signals on frequencies at or below 550 MHz, or more than 8 dB for signals on frequencies above 550 MHz. These requirements will apply both to devices that are built into TV receivers and VCRs and to standalone units. We also wish to clarify that the limits that we adopt here do not apply to our procedure for the measurement of receiver noise figures, which allows 4 dB to be subtracted to allow for a signal splitter between the RF input connector of the receiver and the UHF tuner under test. '680*((Ԍ|125. Equipment Authorization. In the Notice, we requested comment on whether we should subject "cable ready" television receivers and component descrambler/decoders to authorization under the notification or certification procedures, rather than the verification procedure to which these devices are currently  ? subject.9X^G ?@ ԍ The verification, notification and certification procedures are set forth in Section 2, Subpart J of the rules. See 47 C.F.R. 2, Subpart J. }126. In its comments, the CAG states that television receivers have very good levels of compliance under the Commission's verification procedure. It therefore believes there is no need for the Commission to impose new burdens on manufacturers or itself by applying either of the more rigorous notification or certification procedures to "cable ready" consumer TV equipment. The CAG argues that as the new rules become effective, any noncompliance is likely to be detected by rival consumer electronics manufacturers or by cable operators and brought to the attention of the Commission, which could then correct the violations. SMCTC and NYC urge the Commission to subject these devices to the certification process, where compliance is determined by the Commission before a grant of equipment authorization is made. SMCTC believes that a lesser procedure such as verification is too tempting for some manufacturers to resist taking shortcuts to obtain unfair competitive advantage over complying manufacturers. NYC believes that the verification procedure may be insufficient because the new standards for "cable ready" equipment will entail substantial improvements in the technical performance of TV equipment. NYC believes the close scrutiny of the certification procedure is needed to permit the Commission to monitor compliance. ~127. We find that our verification procedure is sufficient to ensure that TV receivers, VCRs and similar consumer electronics equipment comply with our technical requirements, including the new "cable ready" standards. Our decision to subject this equipment to verification is influenced by the long standing record of compliance of television receivers under verification in the Commission's equipment authorization program. Moreover, we believe the requirements adopted herein do not involve any new or advanced technology which would challenge the current capability of the television receiver industry. In response to NYC's concern regarding the lack of compliance monitoring by the Commission under the verification procedure, we intend to closely monitor "cable ready" equipment for compliance with the standards adopted herein through our sampling program provided for in Section 15.29(d) of the Rules. (#790*((Ԍ128. Implementation of Rules for New Consumer Equipment. In the Notice, we proposed to require that all consumer electronics equipment manufactured or imported after December 31, 1996, that is marketed as "cable ready" or otherwise marketed as intended for connection directly to cable service comply with the new "cable ready" technical standards. This proposal was based on indications by the CAG and the JEC that they would complete their work on the new channel plan and the updated Decoder Interface standard by the end of 1993. 129. The CAG believes a slightly longer period is needed for implementation of the new equipment rules to ensure a smooth transition. First, it states that the "cable ready" equipment rules should be made effective in the spring season, when new products are generally introduced, rather than in the middle of the busy holiday season. Second, it submits that cable systems should be required to be in a position to provide component descrambler/decoders when Decoder Interface equipped receivers first become available, rather than after the deadline for all "cable ready" sets to incorporate Decoder Interface connectors. The CAG states that current information suggests that cable hardware suppliers may not be in a position to supply decoders in volume before the end of 1996. Based on these considerations, it suggests that the date for compliance with the "cable ready" standards be changed to June 30, 1997. It further recommends that cable operators be required to make decoders available to subscribers no later than December 31, 1996, six months before the deadline for inclusion of Decoder Interface connectors in  ? "cable ready" consumer equipment.}:^G ?8 ԍ We are deferring this issue to our subsequent action on the Decoder Interface standard.} The CAG also submits that although products that meet the "cable ready" requirements will not be immediately available, it recommends that the rule prohibit use of the term "cable ready" to describe equipment that does not meet these new standards become effective promptly. NYC similarly submits that until these standards become effective, we should prohibit manufacturers from using the term "cable ready" in connection with their products unless they disclose to consumers that some features of the equipment may not be operable when it is connected to a cable service. Most of the other commenting parties either did not address the implementation date for the new equipment or agreed with our proposed implementation schedule for new equipment. 130. We find that the schedule suggested by the CAG provides an acceptable plan for implementation of the new equipment rules. The relatively short additional time requested by the CAG will accommodate the normal introduction cycle of new consumer TV products and the production of component descrambler/decoders for distribution by cable operators with$8 :0*(( only a modest delay from our proposed schedule. This schedule will also allow additional time for completion of the Decoder Interface standard so that this feature can be incorporated into all new "cable ready" equipment. Accordingly, we will require that new TV receivers and VCRs marketed using the terms "cable ready" or "cable compatible" after June 30, 1997, comply with the "cable ready" equipment standards. We will consider the CAG's suggestion to require that cable operators provide component descrambler/decoders to subscribers with "cable ready" equipment when we finalize the Decoder Interface standard. 131. We also agree with the CAG and NYC that the rule restricting use of the term "cable ready" to describe new consumer electronics equipment should be implemented promptly in order to minimize confusion for consumers. Accordingly, we are prohibiting use of "cable ready," "cable compatible," and other terms and descriptors that convey the impression a device is fully compatible with cable service, in the labeling and packaging of consumer TV receivers and VCRs manufactured or imported for sale to consumers in this country after October 31, 1994, unless that equipment complies with the "cable ready" technical standards.  Standards for Cable Systems 132. Channelization. We proposed to require that cable systems built or rebuilt after one year from the effective date of the new rules use the new EIA IS132 cable channel plan for channels up to 1 GHz, consistent with our proposals for "cable ready" consumer equipment standards, and to require all cable systems to use this channel plan after 10 years. We also requested comment on how our adoption of the EIA IS132 channel plan would affect the use of compression methods or multiplexing of cable channels. 133. The commenting parties generally support our proposal to require cable systems to use the EIA IS132 channel plan. For example, the CAG agrees that this requirement is needed to ensure compatibility with the tuners of consumer electronics equipment. Greater Media and the Joint Cable Commenters submit that cable systems should be allowed to use other channel schemes for transmitting digital and other nonstandard signals. The CAG submits that compliance with the EIA IS132 channel plan is likely to present minimal difficulties for most cable systems and therefore believes that it would be reasonable to implement this standard on a more expedited timetable than that proposed. It recommends that the compliance date for all cable systems be established as June 30, 1997, the same date it proposes for making effective the technical standards for "cable ready" consumer equipment. The CAG further believes that we should provide for accommodating cable operators that are not able to meet this deadline. '9:0*((Ԍ134. To complete our adoption of the EIA IS132 cable channel plan, we are requiring all cable systems to use this plan for transmitting analog television service. We wish to clarify that cable systems will not have to activate channels for all of the channels specified in EIA IS132, but rather will be required to adhere to the frequency plan in this standard for the analog channels that they provide to their subscribers. While cable systems may use other channel plans for providing digital service, we advise cable operators that, consistent with our plan to adopt cable digital transmission standards as indicated below, we intend to adopt a channel plan for digital cable service at an appropriate time in the future. 135. We are also adopting the proposed transition plan recommended by the CAG for requiring cable systems to implement this new standard. As the portion of EIA IS132 that addresses frequencies under 1 GHz has been substantially defined for some time and is already used by most cable systems so that hardware is available, we believe one year is an adequate amount of time for new and rebuilt cable systems to comply with that standard. We similarly find that it would not be unduly burdensome to require that all cable systems comply with the EIA IS132 channel plan by June 30, 1997. As the CAG notes, this would ensure that all cable systems are using the channel plan standard when the "cable ready" equipment standards become effective. Accordingly, cable systems built or rebuilt after May 31, 1995 will be required to comply with the new cable channel standard, and all cable systems must comply with this standard by June 30, 1997. Future Technologies 136. In the Notice, we indicated that in order to avoid future compatibility problems that could arise with the introduction of digital transmission methods by the cable industry, it will be necessary to standardize the system used for digital transmissions. We noted that the CAG has stated that it would be feasible to establish standards for digital compression/ decompression and a standard security interface system on a  ? schedule that takes place over the next several years.;X^G ? ԍ The CAG indicates that standards for the digital cable environment could be established in accordance with the following timetable: pp1993: Define "cable ready" pp1994: Define transmission and tuner specifications ppNo later than 1995: Set target dates for standards for decompression and a standard security interface system.(#p ':0*((ԌSee "Supplemental Comments of the CableConsumer Electronics Compatibility Advisory Group," ET Docket No. 937, filed with the Commission July 21, 1993. We:;0*(( recognized that developmental work in this area is still in progress, and therefore requested suggestions for a regulatory plan that would require completion of a digital cable transmission standard in a manner that would allow for timely and efficient introduction of consumer products that could receive service under the new standard. 137. A number of parties agree that we should establish standards for transmission of digital signals on cable systems. The CAG states that a firm understanding that digital standards will be prescribed is important to the current cooperative efforts of the cable and consumer electronics industries and to assure consumers and legislators that the kinds of problems that led to enactment of Section 17 do not occur. The CAG further states that it plans to finish its work on defining digital transmission and tuner specifications by the end of 1994. It indicates that the JEC is investigating ongoing digital standards activities both domestically and internationally and will provide a report on this work in mid1994 that could serve as the basis for a further rule making action by the  ? Commission.:<H ^G ? ԍ The CAG indicates that its work will attempt to balance the need for early identification of proposed standards with the importance of preserving necessary flexibility to permit technological innovation and the development of new services and consumer electronics features. The CAG submits that its work does not intend to foreclose the development of new technology, including new scrambling systems, or the development and delivery of new services such as online data services, video games, video telephony, digital music and others. The CAG also states that such services should not be precluded by strict enforcement of the new channelization plan. It indicates that the new Decoder Interface connector is being designed in a fashion which should be able to accommodate new scrambling methodologies and other new services. It further submits that the cable and consumer electronics industries envision establishing procedures whereby new services and scrambling methodologies can be tested for compatibility with the Decoder Interface.: Pacific Bell believes the CAG's schedule for developing a cable digital standard is overly ambitious and does not allow time for proper completion of work in a number of complex areas, including technical and market testing. It expresses concern that any standards developed prematurely could face consumer rejection or technical obsolescence. Pacific Bell believes that a more reasonable estimate for completing a digital cable standard is late 1995. ;<0*((Ԍ138. Consistent with their position on standards for the Decoder Interface connector and associated component descrambler/decoders, Circuit City, Mitsubishi and News Datacom submit that to provide for a competitive market in hardware and software functions, we should: 1) establish a standard for digital cable transmissions, including security; 2) only allow functions directly related to security to be reserved to hardware/software provided by cable operators; and, 3) require that other functions be accommodated in a manner that would allow them to be provided on a competitive basis. News Datacom, Pacific Bell and SMCTC submit that we should begin to develop standards for cable digital transmission now, to avoid new compatibility problems in the future. Titan similarly requests that we initiate an inquiry into the standardization of digital 525line television service. News Datacom further recommends that the cable digital standard be compatible with MPEG2. The Joint Cable Commenters note that the EIA IS132 channel plan does not define the multiplexing of digitally compressed channels within a 6 MHz channel and submit that the appropriate time to further define the channel plan in this regard would be at the time digital transmission standards are set. 139. GI and the Joint Cable Commenters oppose standardization of cable system security technology or rules that would allow the incorporation of security circuitry into consumer equipment. GI argues that such an approach would give "pirates" a single technical design to attack and thereby undermine the ability of cable operators to protect their signals. HewlettPackard and Titan, however, recommend that we also establish a standard security system for cable digital service. They indicate that modern encryption/security methods make it feasible to achieve adequate security in a digital system that separates the signal coding (program information) and access control (security) functions by using standard interfaces and that such an approach would not be less secure than current approaches. Titan states that this approach would allow both the decoder and access control functions to be incorporated into consumer equipment and that access control could be provided through a secure chip within a "smart card." They urge that we proceed expeditiously toward adoption of a standard security system for component descrambler/decoders. 140. Mitsubishi and Titan believe that we should link a standard for cable digital transmissions to the standard for broadcast advanced television (ATV) service. They state that conforming digital standards for broadcast and cable television will avoid the investment of billions of dollars in incompatible systems and provide clear guidance for industry. The Interactive Multimedia Association (IMA) believes that we should also, in the near term and synchronous with the development of digital cable standards, define a return data path from consumer electronics devices to cable service. It states that such a return path is'<<0*(( needed to allow the implementation of new interactive multimedia services. The IMA submits that the return path should be compatible with the new Decoder Interface standard and should include a definition of a standard bidirectional protocol for connecting interactive services to consumer equipment. 141. GI, TCI and Home Box Office (HBO) urge that we refrain from proceeding to adopt a digital transmission standard for cable systems now. They state that while digital transmission standards may be useful eventually, the dynamic nature of these emerging technologies could lead to inefficient outcomes if we were to adopt such standards too soon. HBO believes that whatever standard may prove necessary for digital cable transmission will be developed most efficiently through market evolution. TCI states that we should rely on industry groups to develop and recommend cable digital standards. HBO also states that any standards setting action by the Commission now would lead to a halt in the existing transition to digital systems by satellite cable services. 142. AT&T, Bell Atlantic and USTA also argue that we should provide for consideration of all types of video transport services in setting digital transmission, compression and interface standards. AT&T recommends that we initiate a broadranging inquiry to address interfaces among equipment in the home and to transmission and information processing standards for future digital multimedia products and standards. 143. We recognize the need to proceed with caution in this area and to ensure that our processes and regulations do not unnecessarily impair the development of new cable technologies and services and of appropriate interfaces between such technologies and services with other media. Notwithstanding these considerations, we find that standards for cable digital transmissions are necessary to avoid future compatibility problems when cable systems use digital transmission methods, and to allow the mass production of economical consumer equipment that is compatible with cable digital services. In the latter regard, we believe that standardization is needed to ensure the establishment and effective operation of a competitive market in consumer hardware and software products for connection to digital cable service. 144. As observed by a number of the commenting parties, the development of cable digital standards will have to address a number of important and complex technical and policy issues in addition to the question of compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics equipment. Some of these include the appropriate compression and signalling technologies, our policy towards encryption methods, the relationship of the cable digital system to the terrestrial broadcast ATV standard and multimedia, whether to require all new and innovative services to adhere to'=<0*(( the standards, and the interfaces between cable digital technology and the technologies used to deliver service by alternative media such as video dialtone and direct satellite broadcasting. In view of the broad scope of the issues involved in defining cable digital transmission standards and related policies, we believe it is more appropriate to defer these matters to a separate proceeding. Accordingly, we will not take any further steps toward adoption of cable digital standards in this proceeding. We will address these and other issues relating to digital video technologies and services in a future Notice of Inquiry that will initiate an omnibus proceeding on digital video services. !PROCEDURAL MATTERS 145. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 601, et seq., the Commission incorporated an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making  in this proceeding. Written comments were requested on the IFRA. Our final regulatory analysis is as follows: I. Need for and Objective of the Rules: Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 requires the Commission to prescribe regulations for assuring compatibility between TV receivers and VCRs and cable systems, consistent with the need to prevent theft of cable service. We believe that the rules we are adopting will ensure compatibility between cable systems and consumer equipment while imposing the least burden on equipment manufacturers, cable systems and consumers. III. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. Wherever possible, we have attempted to minimize costs for both cable operators and consumer electronics manufacturers. The regulatory burdens we are adopting are necessary to ensure that the public receives the benefits of compatibility between cable systems and their TV receivers and VCRs. The major area where alternatives are possible is in the choice of the Decoder Interface connector as a means for avoiding the need to use settop devices. Use of a Decoder Interface will resolve the need for settop devices and also provide a path to compatibility with future services that use digital compression. While the Decoder Interface connector will be a new requirement for manufacturers, the cost of this feature is expected to be recoverable through a modest premium in the prices of "cable ready" TV receivers and VCRs. The amount of this increase is likely to be less for cable subscribers than the cost of technologies that would provide subscribers all authorized signals "in the clear." We will continue to examine alternatives in the future, particularly with regard to the'><0*(( technical standard for the Decoder Interface standard, with the objective of minimizing any significant impact of our regulations on small entities. 146. The Commission's Secretary will send a copy of this First Report and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. @?<0*(( 147. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Parts 15 and 76 of the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A, effective 30 days after the publication of a summary of this First Report and Order in the Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to authority provided in Sections 4(i), 7(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and 324A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and 324A. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary@<0*((  ?  ? % APPENDIX A ă Amendments to the Rules Parts 15 and 76 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: Part 15 RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 15 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A. 2. Section 15.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (aa) to read as follows: 15.3 Definitions. * * * * *  ?0  (aa) Cable ready consumer electronics equipment. Consumer electronics TV receiving devices, including TV receivers, videocassette recorders and similar devices, that incorporate a tuner capable of receiving television signals and an input terminal intended for receiving cable television service, and are marketed as "cable ready" or "cable compatible." Such equipment shall comply with the technical standards specified in Section15.118 of this chapter. 3. Section 15.19 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: 15.19 Labeling requirements. * * * * * (d) Consumer electronics TV receiving devices, including TV receivers, videocassette recorders and similar devices, that incorporate features intended to be used with cable television service, but do not fully comply with the technical standards for cable ready equipment set forth in Section 15.118 of this chapter, are subject to the following labeling requirements: (1) Such equipment shall be labeled with an advisory indicating that the device does not fully comply with the Federal Communications Commissions standards for cable ready consumer electronics equipment. The advisory must appear on the device and on its packaging. This requirement applies to consumer TV receivers, videocassette recorders and similar devices manufactured or imported for sale in this country on or after June 30, 1997.'A<0*((Ԍ (2) Such equipment shall not be marketed with terminology that describes the device as "cable ready" or "cable compatible," or that otherwise conveys the impression that the device is fully compatible with cable service. This requirement applies to consumer TV receivers, videocassette recorders and similar devices manufactured or imported for sale in this country on or after October 31, 1994.  ?@  4. Section 15.115 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) and adding new paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: 15.115 TV interface devices, including cable system terminal devices. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * *  ?  (i) For a cable system terminal device or a TV interface device equipped for use with a cable system or a master antenna, as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the isolation between the antenna and cable input terminals shall be at least 80 dB from 54 MHz to 216 MHz, at least 60 dB from 216 MHz to 550 MHz and at least 55 dB from 550 MHz to 806 MHz. The 80 dB standard applies at 216 MHz and the 60 dB standard applies at 550 MHz. In the case of a transfer switch requiring a power source, the required isolation shall be maintained in the event the device is not connected to a power source or power is interrupted. The provisions of this subparagraph regarding frequencies in the range 550 MHz to 806 MHz are effective June 30, 1997. * * * * * (h) Standalone switches used to alternate between cable service and an antenna shall provide isolation between the antenna and cable input terminals that is at least 80 dB from 54 MHz to 216 MHz, at least 60 dB from 216 MHz to 550 MHz and at least 55 dB from 550 MHz to 806 MHz. The 80 dB standard applies at 216 MHz and the 60 dB standard applies at 550 MHz. In the case of standalone switches requiring a power source, the required isolation shall be maintained in the event the device is not connected to a power source or power is interrupted. The provisions of this paragraph are effective June 30, 1997. (i) Switches and other devices intended to be used to by-pass the processing circuitry of a cable system terminal device, whether internal to such a terminal device or a standalone unit, shall not attenuate the input signal more than 6 dB from 54 MHz to 550 MHz, or more than 8 dB from 550 MHz to 806 MHz. The provisions of this paragraph are effective June 30, 1997.'B<0*((Ԍ 5. Section 15.117 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: 15.117 TV broadcast receivers. * * * * * (h) For a TV broadcast receiver equipped with a cable input selector switch, the selector switch shall provide, in any of its set positions, isolation between the antenna and cable input terminals of at least 80 dB from 54 MHz to 216 MHz, at least 60 dB from 216 MHz to 550 MHz and at least 55 dB from 550 MHz to 806MHz. The 80 dB standard applies at 216 MHz and the 60 dB standard applies at 550 MHz. In the case of a selector switch requiring a power source, the required isolation shall be maintained in the event the device is not connected to a power source or power is interrupted. An actual switch that can alternate between reception of cable television service and an antenna is not required for a TV broadcast receiver, provided compliance with the isolation requirement specified in this paragraph can be demonstrated and the circuitry following the antenna input terminal(s) has sufficient bandwidth to allow the reception of all TV broadcast channels authorized under this chapter. The provisions of this paragraph regarding frequencies in the range 550 MHz to 806 MHz are effective June 30, 1997. 6. New Section 15.118 is added to read as follows: 15.118 Cable ready consumer electronics equipment. (a) All consumer electronics TV receiving equipment marketed in the United States as cable ready or cable compatible shall comply with the provisions of this section. Consumer electronics TV receiving equipment that includes features intended for use with cable service but does not fully comply with the provisions of this section are subject to the labelling requirements of Section 15.19(d). (b) Cable ready consumer electronics equipment shall be capable of receiving all NTSC or similar video channels in the frequency range 54 MHz to 804 MHz in accordance with the channel allocation plan set forth in the Electronics Industries Association's "Cable Television Channel Identification Plan, EIA IS132, May 1994" (EIA IS132). This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of EIA IS132 may be obtained from: Global Engineering Documents, 2805 McGraw Ave., Irvine CA 92714. Copies of EIA IS132 may be inspected during normal business hours at the following locations: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Dockets Branch (Room 239), Washington, DC, or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.'C<0*((Ԍ(c) Cable ready consumer electronics equipment must meet the following technical performance requirements. Compliance with these requirements shall be determined by performing measurements at the unfiltered IF output port. Where appropriate, the Commission will consider allowing alternative measurement methods. (1) Adjacent channel interference. In the presence of a lower adjacent channel CW signal that is 1.5 MHz below the desired visual carrier in frequency and 10 dB below the desired visual carrier in amplitude, spurious signals within the IF passband shall be attenuated at least 55 dB below the visual carrier of the desired signal. The desired input signal shall be an NTSC visual carrier modulated with a 10 IRE flat field and the aural carrier should be unmodulated. Measurements are to be performed for input signal levels of 0 dBmV and +15 dBmV, with the receiver tuned to ten evenly spaced channels specified in the EIA IS132 channel plan. (2) Image channel interference. Image channel interference within the IF passband shall be attenuated below the visual carrier of the desired channel by at least 60 dB from 54 MHz to 806 MHz. In testing for compliance with this standard, the desired input signal is to be an NTSC visual carrier modulated with a 10 IRE flat field and the aural carrier should be unmodulated. The undesired test signal shall be a CW signal equal in amplitude to the desired visual carrier and located 90 MHz above the visual carrier frequency of the desired channel. Measurements shall be performed for input signals of 0 dBmV and +15 dBmV, with the receiver tuned to ten evenly spaced channels specified in the EIA IS132 channel plan. (3) Direct pickup interference. The direct pickup (DPU) of a cochannel interfering ambient field by a cable ready device shall not exceed the following criteria. The ratio of the desired to undesired signal levels at the IF passband on each channel shall be at least 45 dB. The average ratio over the six channels shall be at least 50 dB. The desired input signal shall be an NTSC signal having a visual carrier level of 0 dBmV. The equipment under test (EUT) shall be placed on a rotatable table that is one meter in height. Any excess length of the power cord and other connecting leads shall be coiled on the floor under the table. The EUT shall be immersed in a horizontally polarized uniform CW field of 100 mV/m at a frequency 2.55 MHz above the visual carrier of the EUT tuned channel. Measurements shall be made with the EUT tuned to six EIA IS132 channels, two each in the low VHF, high VHF and UHF broadcast bands. On each channel, the levels at the IF passband due to the desired and interfering signals are to be measured. (4) Tuner overload. Spurious signals within the IF passband shall be attenuated at least 55 dB from 54 to 806 MHz below the visual carrier of the desired channel using a comb spectrum input with each signal individually set at +15 dBmV. Measurements shall be made with the receiver tuned to ten evenly spaced EIA IS132 channels.'D<0*((Ԍ(5) Cable input conducted emissions. Conducted spurious emissions that appear at the cable input to the device must meet the following criteria. The input shall be an NTSC video carrier modulated with a 10 IRE flat field at a level of 0 dBmV and with a visual to aural ratio of 10 dB. The aural carrier shall be unmodulated. The peak level of the spurious signals will be measured using a spectrum analyzer connected by a directional coupler to the cable input of the equipment under test. Spurious signal levels must not exceed the limits in the following table:  ? From 54 MHz up to and including 300 MHzPP626 dBmV  ? From 300 MHz up to and including 450 MHz720 dBmV  ?` From 450 MHz up to and including 806 MHz715 dBmV The average of the measurements on multiple channels from 450 MHz up to and including 806 MHz shall be no greater than 20 dBmV. Measurements shall be made with the receiver tuned to at least four EIA IS132 channels in each of the above bands. The test channels are to be evenly distributed across each of the bands. Measurements for conducted emissions caused by sources internal to the device are to be made in a shielded room. Measurements for conducted emissions caused by external signal sources shall be made in an ambient RF field whose field strength is 100 mV/m, following the same test conditions as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. (d) The field strength of radiated emissions from cable ready consumer electronics equipment shall not exceed the limits in Section 15.109(a) when measured in accordance with the applicable procedures specified in Section 15.31 and Section 15.35 for unintentional radiators, with the following modifications. During testing the NTSC input signal level is to be +15 dBmV, with a visual to aural ratio of 10 dB. The visual carrier is to be modulated by a 10 IRE flat field; the aural carrier is to be unmodulated. Measurements are to be taken on six EIA IS132 channels evenly spaced across the required RF input range of the equipment under test. XNote: The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are effective June 30, 1997.(# Part 76 CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 7. The authority citation for Part 76 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 324A 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1101; 47 U.S.C. Secs. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 532, 533, 535, 542, 543, 544A, 552 as amended, 106 Stat. 1460. 8. Section 76.605 is amended by redesignating the existing paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(12) as paragraphs (a)(3) through'E<0*(( (a)(13), and adding a new paragraph (a)(2) and to read as follows: 76.605 Technical standards. (a) * * * (2) Cable systems shall transmit channels to subscriber premises equipment on frequencies in accordance with the channel allocation plan set forth in the Electronics Industries Association's "Cable Television Channel Identification Plan, EIA IS132, May 1994" (EIA IS132). This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Cable systems are required to use this channel allocation plan for signals transmitted in the frequency range 54 MHz to 1002 MHz. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of EIA IS132 may be obtained from: Global Engineering Documents, 2805 McGraw Ave., Irvine CA 92714. Copies of EIA IS132 may be inspected during normal business hours at the following locations: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Dockets Branch (Room 239), Washington, DC, or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC. This requirement is effective on May 31, 1995, for new and rebuilt cable systems, and on June 30, 1997, for all cable systems. * * * * * 9. New Section 76.630 is added to read as follows: 76.630 Compatibility with consumer electronics equipment. (a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier. Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons. As part of this showing, cable operators are required to notify subscribers by mail of waiver requests. The notice to subscribers must be mailed no later than thirty calendar days from the date the request waiver was filed with the Commission, and cable operators must inform the Commission in writing, as soon as possible, of that notification date. The notification to subscribers must state: X"On (date of waiver request was filed with the Commission), (cable operator's name) filed with the Federal Communications Commission a request for waiver of the rule prohibiting scrambling of channels on the basic tier of'F<0*(( service. 47 C.F.R. Section 76.630(a). The request for waiver states (a brief summary of the waiver request). A copy of the request for waiver is on file for public inspection at (the address of the cable operator's local place of business).(# XIndividuals who wish to comment on this request for waiver should mail comments to the Federal Communications Commission by no later than 30 days from (the date the notification was mailed to subscribers). Those comments should be addressed to the: Federal Communications Commission, Cable Services Bureau, Washington, D.C. 20554, and should include the name of the cable operator to whom the comments are applicable. Individuals should also send a copy of their comments to (the cable operator at its local place of business)."(# Cable operators may file comments in reply no later than 7 days from the date subscriber comments must be filed. (b) Cable system operators that provide their subscribers with cable system terminal devices and other customer premises equipment that incorporates remote control capability shall permit the remote operation of such devices with commercially available remote control units or otherwise take no action that would prevent the devices from being operated by a commercially available remote control unit. Cable system operators are advised that this requirement obliges them to actively enable the remote control functions of customer premises equipment where those functions do not operate without a special activation procedure. Cable system operators may, however, disable the remote control functions of a subscriber's customer premises equipment where requested by the subscriber. (c) Cable operators may not alter the infrared codes used to operate the remote control capabilities of the customer premises equipment they employ in providing service to subscribers. Cable operators may, however, use new equipment that includes additional infrared codes for new remote control functions that were not included in existing models of customer premises equipment. (d) Cable system operators that use scrambling, encryption or similar technologies in conjunction with cable system terminal devices, as defined in Section 15.1(e) of this chapter, that may affect subscribers' reception of signals shall offer to supply each subscriber with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals. This equipment could include, for example, settop cable system terminal devices with multiple descramblers/decoders and/or timers, and signal bypass switches. (1) The offer of special equipment shall be made to new subscribers at the time they subscribe and to all subscribers at least once each year.'G<0*((Ԍ (2) Such special equipment shall, at a minimum, have the capability:  ?  (i) To allow simultaneous reception of any two or more scrambled or encrypted signals and to provide for tuning to alternative channels on a preprogrammed schedule; and,  ?  (ii) To allow direct reception of all other signals that do not need to be processed through descrambling or decryption circuitry (this capability can generally be provided through a separate bypass switch or through internal bypass circuitry in a cable system terminal device). (3) Cable system operators shall determine the specific equipment needed by individual subscribers on a casebycase basis, in consultation with the subscriber. Cable system operators are required to make a good faith effort to provide subscribers with the amount and types of special equipment needed to resolve their individual compatibility problems. (4) Cable operators shall provide such equipment at the request of individual subscribers and may charge for purchase or lease of the equipment and its installation in accordance with the provisions of the rate regulation rules for customer premises equipment used to receive the basic service tier, as set forth in Section 76.923. Notwithstanding the required annual offering, cable operators shall respond to subscriber requests for special equipment for reception of multiple signals that are made at any time. (e) Cable system operators shall provide a consumer education program on compatibility matters to their subscribers in writing, as follows: (1) The consumer information program shall be provided to subscribers at the time they first subscribe and at least once a year thereafter. Cable operators may choose the time and means by which they comply with the annual consumer information requirement. This requirement may be satisfied by a onceayear mailing to all subscribers. The information may be included in one of the cable system's regular subscriber billings. (2) The consumer information program shall include the following information:  ?  (i) Cable system operators shall inform their subscribers that some models of TV receivers and videocassette recorders may not be able to receive all of the channels offered by the cable system when connected directly to the cable system. In conjunction with this information, cable system operators shall briefly explain, the types of channel compatibility problems that could occur if subscribers connected their equipment directly to the cable system and offer suggestions for resolving those problems. Such suggestions could include, for example, the use a cable system terminal device such as a settop channel converter. Cable system operators shall also indicate that channel compatibility problems associated with reception of programming that is not scrambled or encrypted programming could be resolved through use of simple converter devices without descrambling or'H<0*(( decryption capabilities that can be obtained from either the cable system or a third party retail vendor.  ?  (ii) In cases where service is received through a cable system terminal device, cable system operators shall indicate that subscribers may not be able to use special features and functions of their TV receivers and videocassette recorders, including features that allow the subscriber to: view a program on one channel while simultaneously recording a program on another channel; record two or more consecutive programs that appear on different channels; and, use advanced picture generation and display features such as "PictureinPicture," channel review and other functions that necessitate channel selection by the consumer device.  ?(  (iii) In cases where cable system operators offer remote control capability with cable system terminal devices and other customer premises equipment that is provided to subscribers, they shall advise their subscribers that remote control units that are compatible with that equipment may be obtained from other sources, such as retail outlets. Cable system operators shall also provide a representative list of the models of remote control units currently available from retailers that are compatible with the customer premises equipment they employ. Cable system operators are required to make a good faith effort in compiling this list and will not be liable for inadvertent omissions. This list shall be current as of no more than six months before the date the consumer education program is distributed to subscribers. Cable operators are also required to encourage subscribers to contact the cable operator to inquire about whether a particular remote control unit the subscriber might be considering for purchase would be compatible with the subscriber's customer premises equipment. Cable operators also may wish to advise subscribers that subscriberowned remote control units may not be functional if the cable system changes terminal devices. XNote: The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are effective July 31, 1994, and May 31, 1994, respectively. The provisions of paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section are effective October 31, 1994, except for  ? the requirement under section (d)(1)(i) for cable system operators to supply cable system terminal devices with multiple tuners, which is effective October31, 1995. The initial offer of special equipment to all subscribers, as required under paragraph (d) of this section shall be made by October 31, 1994.   %APPENDIX B ` Parties Filing Comments and/or Reply Comments Parties Filing Comments 1. American Telegraph and Telephone Company 2. Barden Cablevision 3. Bell Atlantic 4. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 5. CableConsumer Electronics Compatibility Advisory Group X(The CAG also submitted an Erratum to Appendices C and D of its comments on February 15, 1994) (# 6. Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc. 7. Cablevision Industries Corporation 8. Cablevision Systems Corporation 9. Christopher A. Catotti 10. Circuit City Stores, Inc. 11. Continental Cablevision, Inc.  ? 12.XCox Cable Communications and Newhouse Broadcasting Corporation(# 13. Chris Carrier 14. John Fitzgerald 15. General Instrument Corporation 16. Greater Media, Inc. 17. HewlettPackard 18. Home Box Office 19. Interactive Multimedia Association  ? 20XJoint Comments of InterMedia Partners, ML Media Partners and ML Media Opportunity Partners (Joint Cable Commenters)(# 21. Lakes Region Cable Television Consortium 22. Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc. 23. Howard N. Meyer 24. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. 25. Multichannel Communications Sciences, Inc. 26. News Datacom, Inc. 27. New York City Department of Telecommunications and Energy 28. O.D. Page  ?x 29.XPacific Telesis Group, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific Bell)(# 30. Sharp Electronics Corporation 31. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission 32. TeleCommunications, Inc. 33. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. 34. The Titan Corporation 35. United States Telephone Association 36. Zenith Electronics Corporation H&K<0*(( x!APPENDIX B (Cont'd) Parties Filing Reply Comments 1. Ameritech 2. CableConsumer Electronics Compatibility Advisory Group X(The CAG also submitted an Erratum to Appendices C and D of its comments on February 15, 1994)(# 3. Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc. 4. Cablevision Systems Corporation 5. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.  ?(  6.XThe Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronics Industries Association(# 7. Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition  ?  8.XThe Consumer Federation of America and the Home Recording Rights Coalition(# 9. Continental Cablevision, Inc. 10. DIRECTV, Inc. 11. General Instrument Corporation 12. GTE Service Corporation 13. Home Box Office  ? 14.XJoint Comments of InterMedia Partners, ML Media Partners and ML Media Opportunity Partners (Joint Cable Commenters)(# 15. Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc. 16. Multichannel Communications Sciences, Inc. 17. National Cable Television Association, Inc. 18. New York City Department of Telecommunications and Energy 19. Nobody Beats The Wiz, Inc. 20. NYNEX Telephone Companies  ?8 21.XPacific Telesis Group, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific Bell)(# 22. Progressive Retailers Organization, Inc. 23. Oregon Consumer League  ?X 24.XSatellite Broadcasting and Communications Association of America(# 25. Scottsdale Television Labs 26. TeleCommunications, Inc. 27. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. 28. The Titan Corporation 29. Viacom International Inc. 30. Zenith Electronics Corporation