WPCW9 2a BK Z CG Times3|j Times New Roman Bold P6G;PTimes New Romany.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,\4  pG;\5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XX6jC:,<̃Xj9 xOG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 5Si RM 210iptHPLAS5SI.PRSC\  P6Q\"]P2C  K K3|j"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;Sg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;\5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XX6jC:,<̃Xj9 xOG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP\ {,W80,%?W*f9 xr G;X!6jC:,<LXj9 xOG;Xa$G,',YG\  P6G;P /y.X80,IX\  P6G;P t,U5.,U\  P6G;P 7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XP "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2q4p2k2ka33a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  26v4t55 '6a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 29 6 7 O8 9a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2f=9:;f<a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2$@=h>>v?a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2BV@@AeBa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2?IC3CDeHa8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading#0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance$PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd%+. 2=Q&N'O(XO)1 PDRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date& X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off'@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance(LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5) 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2pU*1oQ+1R,1S-nULEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5*f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11+L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14, 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document-K\ * ă2HW.XU/U0i{V1dVFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced.BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented/N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level0| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large1B*d. 2u\2jzW3W4EZ5-H[HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored2 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins3u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice4 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format5D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2a68\78]8_9X`INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice6:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro7z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice8+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle92b:[Ba;[a<[a=[SbSMALLSmall Typestyle:FINEFine Typestyle;LARGELarge Typestyle<EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle=2e>[b?;c@ddAe"eVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle>ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header?+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E@ .footnote reference#A 2gBoeC}(fDfE-gfootnote textB%a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfC$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfD/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE:` ` `  2jFgGhH9iIia4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfFE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfGP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfH[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfIf  2lJjKlkLllMxla8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJq Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontK Document 8Document 8L Document 4Document 4M  2nNl*mOlmPlnQlnnDocument 6Document 6N Document 5Document 5O Document 2Document 2P Document 7Document 7Q 2uR oS*qTlHsUsRight Par 1Right Par 1R` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2S` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3T Right Par 3Right Par 3U` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2|~VvW"xX@zY^|Right Par 4Right Par 4V` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5W` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6X` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7Y` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2<Z~[(̀\$]$Right Par 8Right Par 8Z` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1[` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5\` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6]` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2֊^ln_lڇ`$FaljTechnical 2Technical 2^ Technical 3Technical 3_ Technical 4Technical 4w]@@`` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1a 2b$c$,dPenTechnical 7Technical 7b` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8c` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1d` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2e` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#26fgܕhitoc 3toc 3f` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4g` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5h` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6i` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#28jvhkޜlmtoc 7toc 7j toc 8toc 8k` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9l` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1m` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2njopvqlindex 2index 2n` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoao` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionp _Equation Caption_Equation Captionq 2rrrsp,tque endnote referenceendnote referencer 13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3Es/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3Et1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3Eu 34 2vew xpy 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3Ev 56 5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3Ew*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3Ex9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3Ey8;<@   2QzЬ{k|}8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EzA=>@` `  ` ` ` 9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3E{0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E|JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E}SCD` `  @  2~912376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E~\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EeGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EnIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EwKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2#ò}163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EFMN *  ׃  173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3E&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3E&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3E*ST    2U~.203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3E'UV   213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3E&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3E4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3E&[\  . 2mj:243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3E&]^  . CitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ex_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3E'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#2m3footnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3E'gh#FxX  P CXP#referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3E;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3E*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#header2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Eo p`    #FxX  PCXP# 2}pqBeeDocument[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  2pBDDocument[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2JDocument[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2f7Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  2^#-Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   2$YTechnical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . 2i}NFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2U9Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2}QVParagraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  2b28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 2Am32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#2ksv vvfootnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2vvvheading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2lOM_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2k!a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2bl ya82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2($l3bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C 2jl;:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2 3Qo: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2 l Z+   ,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2  5  a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 2uq*a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2>mtTitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  2wpSHanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#Xx PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2!%lp  !Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2&$|!F""#Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 28X$_)f.k3Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedStyle 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2#9p8\33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 2U9 yO'+ X4w  Federal Communications Commission`(#ZFCC 97194 ă   yxdddy   @-  -@ X #C\  P6QɒP#Z Before the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yO'Y}Washington, D.C. 20554#XP\  P6QynXP# c  X4 (#cIn the Matter of ,hh]) ` `  ,hh])  X4Annual Assessment of the Status of )CS Docket No. 97141  X4Competition in Markets for thehh])  X4Delivery of Video Programminghh])  Xr 'Q NOTICE OF INQUIRY Đc  X-4 Adopted: June 3, 1997 ,hh]Released: June 6, 1997  X'  Comment Date: ,July 23, 1997  X' Reply Comment Date:,August 20, 1997  X4 By the Commission:  X4e Table of Contents ă  Xu4Paragraph  X^4(#c  XG4   X04X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: XY {O' x ԍAnnual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS  {O' !Q Docket No. 96133, Third Annual Report, FCC 96496 (Jan. 2, 1997) ("1996 Competition Report"), summarized at  yO' !< 62 Fed. Reg. 5627 (Feb. 16, 1997) (available at http://www.fcc.gov). Earlier reports in compliance with this  {OS' ! statutory requirement were issued in 1994 and 1995. See Implementation of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act  {O' !o (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming), CS Docket  {O' ! No. 9448, First Report, 9 FCC Rcd 7442 (1994) ("1994 Competition Report") and Annual Assessment of the Status  {O' !U of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 9561, Second Annual Report,  {O{' !x 11 FCC Rcd 2060 (1996) ("1995 Competition Report"). See also Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition  {OE' ! in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 9448, Notice of Inquiry, 9 FCC Rcd 2896  {O' ! (1994); Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS  {O' ! Docket No. 9561, Notice of Inquiry, 10 FCC Rcd 7508 (1995); and Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition  {O' !x in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 96133, Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd 7413 (1996).  X 4 ( F2.` ` We recognize that much of the information we will need for the 1997 Competition  !Report can be obtained from publicly available sources. In addition, a considerable amount of  !Erelevant, and even necessary, information may be available in filings with the Commission in  !<connection with a variety of ongoing proceedings. We are not asking parties to repeat here the  !substance of comments that have been filed in other proceedings. Nonetheless, while we intend  !to look to publicly available sources and filings in other proceedings as sources of information,  !commenters should feel free to comment or to provide information on any matter that they  !believe is relevant to the issues on which we will report. Commenters are invited to submit data,  !}information, and analysis regarding the cable industry, existing and potential competitors to cable  !usystems, and the prospects for increasing competition in markets for the delivery of video  !programming. Commenters are also invited to identify and comment on existing statutory  !Wprovisions they perceive as restraining competition or inhibiting development of robust  !"competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. In particular, we seek comment  X4 !Zregarding our conclusions in the 1996 Competition Report, current information and data regarding  X4 !changes over the past year, and factbased projections for the future development of competition"^ ,-(-(ZZ`"  !Iin these markets. Commenters are also asked to provide any other information or analysis they deem relevant for this report.  X-  3.` ` In Section II of this Notice we solicit updated information on the cable industry   and other competitors in markets for the delivery of video programming, technical advances that   affect competition, and industry and market structure issues. As competition to cable's position   as the primary distributor of multichannel video programming continues to expand, our ability   jto obtain timely and accurate data pertaining to all competing multichannel video programming   distributors ("MVPDs") becomes increasingly important. Equally important is our ability to draw   comparisons among MVPDs based on data and information derived from similar time periods.  X -  Thus, we strongly encourage all MVPDs to provide the data and information sought in this Notice   .and to submit data and information responsive to Section II that is current as of June 30, 1997.  X -  4.` ` Section III describes Commission actions taken to implement those portions of  X -  \the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act")z % yO;-ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).z that were intended to remove barriers to   competitive entry and to establish market conditions that promote competitive firm rivalry in   video distribution markets. In this section, we request data and information on the effects of   these provisions on existing and potential distributors of video programming. Finally, as provided  Xf-  in our Video Accessibility Report,P^fX% {Oo-  See Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Video Programming  {O9-  Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95176, Report, 11 FCC Rcd 19214 at 19271 142 (1996) ("Video Accessibility  {O-Report").P we seek information in Section IV on methods and schedules for providing greater accessibility to video programs for persons with visual disabilities.  X#-  II.XCHANGES IN MARKETS FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING  X -SINCE LAST YEAR'S REPORT (#  X< A. ` `  Competitors in Markets For the Delivery of Video Programming    X-  5.` ` Markets for the delivery of video programming are served by video distributors   using both wired and wireless technologies. Among the MPVDs using predominantly wired   jdistribution technologies are cable systems, private cable or satellite master antenna television   ("SMATV") systems, and open video systems ("OVS"). Among those relying predominantly on   wireless distribution technologies are overtheair broadcast television, multichannel multipoint   Ldistribution service ("MMDS"), instructional television fixed service ("ITFS"), local multipoint   distribution service ("LMDS"), direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") service, and home satellite dish   ("HSD") service. Other potential distribution mechanisms include interactive video and data services ("IVDS"), the Internet, and public utility companies.  X -  6.` ` As in previous reports, we seek factual information and statistical data about the   .status of video programming distributors using different technologies, and changes that have"!~,-(-(ZZ "  X-  Loccurred in the past year.t% {Oy-ԍSee Competition Reports, 19941996, supra note 2.t For each multichannel video programming distribution technology,  X-  -we request the following information:Z% yO-ԍWe seek information both in the form of industry aggregate data and company specific data. (a)the numbers of homes passed (for wired technologies)  X-  or the numbers of homes capable of receiving service (for wireless technologies);% yOm- ԍThis includes the number of lineofsight homes for distribution technologies that require lineofsight for reception. (b)the  X-  numbers of subscribers and penetration rates;+B% yO - LԍTo the extent available, we also seek information on the numbers of subscribers to different levels of service  {Ov -(e.g., basic, cable programming service or "CPS," premium, payperview, near videoondemand, etc.).+ (c)channel capacities, the numbers and types of   ychannels offered, and the numbers and types of services offered; and (d)industry revenues, in   the aggregate and by sources (e.g., subscriber revenues, advertising revenues, programming   revenues), expenditures, cash flows, and investments. In addition, we request information   1regarding: (a)industry transactions, including information on mergers, acquisitions,   consolidations, swaps and trades, and crossownership; (b)other structural developments that   affect distributors' delivery of video programming; (c)regulatory and judicial developments that affect use of different technologies; and (d)the effects of the 1996 Act and its implementation.  X -  7.` ` In addition, for certain video distribution technologies we seek additional information, including:  X -  XX` ` (a) In the 1996 Competition Report, we noted that subscribership to existing DBS  X-  services increased substantially since the 1995 Competition Report.Z % {O-ԍ1996 Competition Report at 38.Z We seek   2information about the further development of existing and planned DBS services,   both full contiguous United States ("CONUS") and partial CONUS operations, and   any changes in proposed prices, program offerings, and launch dates. In providing   information regarding the numbers of subscribers and penetration levels of DBS   and HSD providers, we request data on the geographic locations of DBS and HSD   subscribers. We also seek data on the factors that may affect the extent of satellite   service penetration, including relative technical quality of the service, exclusive   programming services, access to network television broadcast signals, access to   alternative multichannel video service providers, access to local broadcast signals,   rates and customer service comparisons. To what extent are viewers switching   from cable to satellite service and to what extent are satellite customers also   simultaneously cable subscribers? To what extent are restrictions on the ability   _of satellite service providers to deliver broadcast signals to subscribers under the   compulsory copyright licensing provisions of the Copyright Act influencing the ability of satellite providers to compete? (#` ";. ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ  ԙXX` ` (b) The 1996 Act delineated four options for local exchange carriers ("LECs")   provision of video services: OVS, common carriage, radio communications, and   Pcable. We seek information on LEC entry into video distribution markets through   _each of these delivery options and the effect of such entry on competition. What  X-  changes, if any, have occurred since the 1996 Competition Report with respect to  X-  LEC plans for video distribution? We also seek information regarding the extent   to which unaffiliated video programming providers, such as SMATVs, are being   carried on LEC common carriage platforms. For the carried providers, does this represent a change in business plans?(#`  X -  XX` ` (c) In the 1996 Competition Report, we noted that "overbuilds by nonLEC  X -  entities continue to be limited."F  % {O -ԍId. at 35.F We also reported on developments regarding   #franchised cable systems operated by LECs, both within their telephone services  X -  $areas and outside those regions.T Z% {O-ԍ1d. at 73, 75.T To update our information on the status of   competition from overbuilds, we request data on the number and location of   overbuilt markets, including maps and other information regarding the overlapping   %coverage areas of competing services. In addition, we request information   regarding the manner in which overbuilders market their services and the effect of overbuild competition on cable rates, services and service quality. (#`   XX` ` (d) We seek information on the role of broadcast television in markets for the   delivery of multichannel video programming. First, we seek comment on the   extent to which distribution of local broadcast signals impacts competition in   2markets for the delivery of video programming. In particular, we seek information   $on technological, copyright, competitive and other issues associated with the   distribution of local broadcast signals by video programming distributors not   currently subject to broadcast television signal carriage requirements. Second, we   solicit comment on the extent to which changes in ownership patterns in the   television broadcast industry and in broadcast networking (United Paramount, WB,   Home Shopping Network, and Paxson Communications Corporation) make   broadcasting more or less competitive with cable television and other multichannel   video service providers. Third, we seek information, particularly empirical   evidence and economic studies, regarding the extent to which broadcast television   ncompetes as a distribution medium with MVPDs and with other entertainment and   Cinformation venues (such as radio or newspapers) for audiences and/or for  X-advertising revenue. X$% yO|%-  ԍIn the 1994 and 1995 Competition Reports, we noted that broadcast television stations are a significant   Lsupplier of programming in the market for the delivery of video programming, but that broadcast stations as" ' ,-(-(]&"   transmission medium do not have a significant constraining effect on the exercise of market power within markets  {O -  for the delivery of video programming. 1994 Competition Report, 9 FCC Rcd at 749295 97102; 1995  {O-Competition Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 2115  115. (#` " ,-(-(ZZ"ԌXX` ` (#`   XX` ` (e) We solicit information on video delivery competition for and within multiple   Adwelling units ("MDUs"). Is competition for or within MDUs more or less robust   than competition for individual residential subscribers? What factors influence   PMDU competition? Are there factors unique to the MDU market that have policy   &consequences for the regulatory process? What are the public interest   consequences of competition for exclusive access to MDUs versus competition within MDUs for subscribers? (#`  X1-  XX` ` (f) In the 1996 Competition Report, we noted a decline in the market valuation   Cof the stock of publiclytraded equity interests in each of the top five cable  X -  3multiple system owners. $ % {Oj- ԍ In the 1996 Competition Report, we indicated that as of midNovember, 1996, the market valuation of   publiclytraded equity interest in each of the top five cable multiple system owners was down 6 points from the  {O-  Standard & Poor's Index of the 500 largest publiclytraded companies in the United States. 1996 Competition Report at 26 n.52. We also observe that the stock market valuation of  X -  cable stocks continues to fluctuate. % {O?-ԍGeraldine Fabrikant, Shareholders Pressure Cablevision, New York Times, Mar. 10, 1997, at D11. What, if anything, does this reflect regarding   3the state of competition in the MVPD market and the regulations applicable to these markets? (#`  X-  XX` ` (g) We also note that cable rates have risen recently.2 % {Ou- ԍIn the 1996 Competition Report, we reported that between January and November of 1996, the cable services   Ysegment of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), a measure of price increases, had increased  {O-  relative to the CPI for all goods and services. 1996 Competition Report at 128. We note that, according to the   CPI cable rates were flat in March 1997, marking the first such month for a considerable period. While all prices   increased 0.1%, according to the CPI, cable showed no change. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor   Review, April 1997. In addition, we note that, over the period of cable rate regulation from April 1993 to the end  {O)-  of 1996, the cable CPI increased by 8.4%, compared with the general CPI of 10.2%. See Statistical Report on  {O-  Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming and Equipment, MM Docket No. 92266, Report on Cable  {O -  Industry Prices, 12 FCC Rcd 3239 at 324546 (1997)  1213. See also Hearings of the Senate Commerce, Science  {O!-and Transportation Committee on Cable Competition, 105th Cong., 1st Sess.1 (Apr.10, 1997).  Are such changes   attributable to debt assumed for facilities upgrade purposes, increased   programming costs, simple exercise of market power, Commission rules, other   factors, or combinations of factors? Have the equipment aggregation rules had an   effect on rates? To what extent are cable operators implementing aggregated   equipment rates and to what extent are they restructuring their programming   packages and tiers of service as a result of actual or potential competition? We",-(-(ZZ"   request information on the types of tier, equipment and rate restructuring that cable   operators are undertaking and seek comment on whether, and to what extent, these   Befforts are intended to differentiate cable service from that of competing video services. (#`  W< B.` ` Technological Issues  Xv-  X_-  8.` ` The 1996 Competition Report described various technological advances that may  XJ-  affect industry structure and competition in markets for the delivery of video programming.bJ% {O -ԍ1996 Competition Report at 17084.b For   this year's report, we seek updated information on developments in the deployment, or planned   deployment, of advanced technologies, such as digital compression, switched digital services and   Zupgraded architectures. We seek data to update the information we presented about the different   transmission facilities used for distribution of multichannel video programming, such as copper   wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, broadcast and other terrestrial radio frequency communications,   terrestrial microwave, satellites, and use of the Internet, and how they affect, and are likely to   affect, industry structure and competition for the provision of video services. We seek   information concerning the hybridization of different transmission media. We also request   .information on system configurations and designs that may facilitate competition, such as the   ability to distribute different types of signals and provide different types of services over the same   ytransmission facility (e.g., digital, analog and telephone signals over a cable operator's facility).   In addition, we seek information about developments in settop boxes, including updates on   interoperability, portability and marketdriven standards. We also seek information on whether   -multichannel video distributors are leasing or selling reception equipment to subscribers, and the   competitive impact, if any, of these alternatives in markets where direct competition among multichannel video programming distributors exists.  X-  "9.` ` The use of digital forms of communication through various compression techniques   allows for more efficient use of bandwidth by cable systems, satellite service providers, wireless   =cable systems, and broadcast stations. The communications involved are also more flexible in   that different types of information audio, video, or data may be combined for distribution.   We seek information on what types of services telephony, Internet access, paging, or audio   Kare currently bundled or are planned to be bundled with video for distribution to subscribers, and   the extent to which bundled services may affect the relative competitive posture of competing   MVPDs. We also seek comment on potential problems and new issues relevant to multichannel video distribution competition in a digital environment.  X - " Z,-(-(ZZ"  X<C.` ` Industry and Market Structure  X-` ` 1.  Horizontal Concentration  X-   10.` ` As in prior reports, we will provide updated information in the 1997 Competition   zReport on the structure and rivalry of markets for the delivery of video programming. In the  Xw-  1996 Competition Report, we refined our definition of the relevant market,w% {O- ԍ1996 Competition Report at 11518. We continued to use the 1992 Cable Act's definition of  {O-  i"multichannel video programming service" as the relevant product market. Id. at 116. We found the relevant   ,geographic area for assessing MVPD competition was local, but rather than using the cable franchise as the relevant   boundary, we concluded that "its extent can be defined by the overlap of the `footprints' of the various service  {O -providers." Id. at 118. posited alternative  Xb-  approaches to measuring concentration in the average local market,Zb~% yO - ԍWe looked at concentration in local markets by analyzing national subscribership shares as a surrogate for    local concentration, and alternatively, by analyzing the numbers of competitors in a market with comparable deployed  {O!-capacity. 1996 Competition Report at  11922. and identified product  XK-  differentiation and entry conditions as factors affecting competition.NK% {O-ԍId. at  12328.N We seek comment on the  X4-  analysis of market structure conditions in the 1996 Competition Report, and information and data   necessary to apply the analysis in the 1997 Competition Report. In particular, we seek   information on changes in the number and market share of all MVPDs, and the effects of MVPD   horizontal concentration at the local, regional and national levels. In local markets where   incumbent cable operators face competition from one or more other video programming   kdistributors, we seek information on: (a)the identity of the competitors; (b)the distribution   Ktechnology used by each competitor; (c)the date that each competitor entered the market; (d)the   location of the market, including whether it is predominantly urban or rural; (e)an estimate of   the subscribership and market share for the services of each competitor; (f)a description of the   [service offerings of each competitor; (g)differentiation strategies each competitor is pursuing; and (h)the prices charged for the service offerings.  X"-   11.` ` In the 1996 Competition Report, we noted that for purposes of examining national   concentration in markets for the distribution of multichannel video programming, it is appropriate   to consider of the presence of all MVPDs, not just cable systems. Consequently, we seek   kinformation and data regarding current national subscribership levels of all MVPDs. To the   extent national concentration has increased or decreased for specific MVPDs, we seek comment   [on the reasons for such changes, including whether such changes are the result of merger and acquisition activity, marketing strategies, or other factors.  Xl-   12.` ` Mergers, acquisitions, consolidations and corporate restructuring are important   [causes of change in industry structure and in the intensity of market competition. As we have   inoted in prior reports, cable operators trade and swap systems to form regional clusters of service">2 ,-(-(ZZ"  X-  areas.S% {Oy-ԍId. at 137.S Broadcasters are consolidating station operations and ownership in record numbers.GZZ% {O - MԍSee, e.g., Radio Rules Debated, Television Digest, Feb. 17, 1997 (DOJ Acting Antitrust Chief Joel Klein    states that more than 1000 radio stations have been involved in transactions in the year following passage of the 1996 Act).G  X-  And, two Regional Bell Operating Company mergers have been announced.|% {O- jԍPacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 9728, Report  {O-  No. LB9632, 1997 WL 49594, Jan. 31, 1997; Public Notice, Bell Atlantic Corporation and NYNEX Corporation  {O -  Seek FCC Consent for Proposed Transfer of Control, Pleading Cycle Established (CCB Aug. 14, 1996); Public  {Ot -  Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Declares Bell AtlanticNYNEX Transfer of Control Proceedings `Restricted' for Ex  {O> -Parte Purposes, Tracking No. 960221, DA 961727 (CCB Oct. 18, 1996). The Commission   seeks information on such events, their effects on industry structure, and impact on markets for   the delivery of video programming. In particular, we solicit maps that show the ownership   patterns that have resulted from industry restructuring. We also request information on the effects of these changes on competition in markets for the delivery of video programming.  X_-` ` 2.  Vertical Integration  X1-  %  13.` ` In the 1997 Competition Report, we will update information on existing and   planned programming services, with particular focus on those programming services that are   >affiliated with video programming distributors. Thus, we seek information on programming   Zservices that are affiliated with cable operators, affiliated with other noncable video programming distributors, and unaffiliated with any MVPD. In particular, we seek information on:  X -  _(a) ` ` existing national and regional programming services, and the extent to which they   ~are affiliated with cable operators or other MVPDs, including the percentage of   ownership or amount and type of interest by each MVPD, the date such interest was acquired, and any changes since last year; (#`  X4-  B(b)` ` national and regional programming service launches and announced launches during the past year, and their MVPD affiliations;(#`  X-  (c)` ` the number of subscribers or nationwide share of subscribers for: (1)independent   programming networks; (2)national cable programming networks distributed by   Pcable systems; (3)national cable programming networks distributed by noncable   MVPDs; (4)national programming networks affiliated with noncable MVPDs   odistributed by cable systems; and (5)national programming networks affiliated with noncable MVPDs distributed by noncable distribution systems;(#`  XN-  3X(d)X` ` the number of subscribers or market share of subscribers for: (1)independent   regional programming networks; (2)regional cable programming networks"7 6 ,-(-(ZZ{"   distributed by cable systems; (3)regional cable programming networks distributed   by noncable MVPDs; (4)regional programming networks affiliated with non  cable MVPDs distributed by cable systems; and (5)regional programming   networks affiliated with noncable MVPDs distributed by noncable distribution systems;(#`  Xv-   X(e)X` ` the extent to which national and regional programming services have affiliations with actual or potential MVPD competitors;(#`  X1-  EX(f)X` ` audience ratings, prime time or all dayparts, of national and regional programming services;(#`  X -   X(g)X` ` whether a minimum level of subscribership is necessary to successfully launch new   national and regional programming networks, whether there is a minimum   _subscribership level necessary for these networks to break even and survive, and   whether these levels vary depending on whether the new programming network   Ais vertically integrated with a MVPD. Have any national or regional programming   networks been launched exclusively on noncable distribution systems? Are there entry barriers that affect the launch of new programming networks? (#`  X4-  (h)` ` the extent to which video programming distributors are acquiring proprietary   _rights, such as the purchase of sports teams, and the competitive strategy behind such acquisitions; and(#`  X-  @X(i)X` ` changes in the relationships between program producers/providers and distributors,   nincluding whether producers/providers are paying for carriage on MVPDs instead   of being paid license fees by MVPDs, and, if so, what services are involved.   }What are the implications of such arrangements for competition and the supply of programming?(#`  XN-   14.` ` As in prior reports, we also will update the effectiveness of our program access,  X7-  program carriage, and channel occupancy rules.\7% {O- ԍ1996 Competition Report at 14966; 1995 Competition Report, 11 FCC Rcd 213542 15772; 1994  {Oz-  Competition Report, 9 FCC Rcd at 752022, 752836 15859, 17398. The program access, carriage and channel occupancy rules govern relationships between cable operators and programming providers. In the 1996 Competition Report, we noted that   the program access rules, which are intended to ensure access by noncable MVPDs to satellite   xdelivered programming produced by companies affiliated with cable operators, have been credited  X-  as a necessary factor in the development of DBS and MMDS.[% {O$-ԍ1996 Competition Report at 150.[ We also observed, however, a   concern that the program access rules may be too narrowly focused to address some current issues   related to access to programming. In addition, we note that the 1996 Act expanded the program   Laccess rules to apply to OVS operators and common carriers in the same manner as they apply"! ~,-(-(ZZ "  X-  to cable operators.U% yOy-ԍ47 C.F.R. 76.1004, 76.1507.U Therefore, we seek information on the effectiveness of the program access   rules during the past year, including the effect of expansion of these rules to OVS operators and   common carriers, and on any remaining issues of concern to video programming providers or   MVPDs. We request information that would help in assessing whether the program access rules   Lshould be expanded or contracted in their coverage. We seek comment on the extent to which   there are programming distribution networks affiliated with noncable MVPDs and whether such   programming networks are available to competing MVPDs, including cable operators, on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.  X1-  415.` ` We also seek comment on our leased access rules.~1X% yO: - ԍThe leased access rules require cable operators to set aside channel capacity for commercial use of cable  {O -  by unaffiliated programmers. 47 C.F.R. 76.701, 76.970, 76.971, 76.975, 76.977. See also Implementation of   Sections of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation Leased Commercial  {O-  -Access, MM Docket No. 92266, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 16933 (1996).~ In particular, we seek   ]comment on the impact of our recent revision of the formula for calculating the maximum  X -  {reasonable rate for leased access& % {O- ԍ Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  {O-  Leased Commercial Access, CS Docket No. 9660, Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration  {OT-  of the First Report and Order, FCC 9727 (Feb. 4, 1997), summarized at 62 Fed. Reg. 11362 (Mar. 12, 1997). A petition for reconsideration is pending. on the carriage of leased access programming and on   [competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. We specifically request data on   Kthe number of channels being used for leased access programming and the types of programming   offered on such channels. We also seek information on the extent to which leased access channels are used on a part time, rather than full time, basis.   Wy< D.` ` Effect of Competition in Local Markets  (#`  XK-  16.` ` In the 1996 Competition Report, we examined several case studies of local markets  X6-  Kwhere cable operators faced actual competition from MVPD entrants,b6 % {O-ԍ1996 Competition Report at 20133.b and found that incumbent   cable operators were generally responding to competitive entry in two ways: increasing their  X-  service offerings and lowering their prices.N % {OE"-ԍId. at 22931.N We seek updated information on the effects of   yactual and potential competition in these local markets and in others where consumers have, or   /soon will have, a choice between MVPDs. In particular, we seek information on incumbent   MVPDs responses to anticipated and actual entry by competing MVPDs. Do the competitive   responses focus on rates or on efforts to differentiate program service, technical performance or   zcustomer service? In addition, we request identification of particular strategic behavior and" ,-(-(ZZ`"   /conduct by other MVPDs that affect competition in markets characterized by headtohead competition between or among MVPDs.  X-  17.` ` We also noted in the 1996 Competition Report that laws, regulations, and strategic   kbehavior by incumbents can create impediments to entry and competition in markets for the   jdelivery of video programming, and endeavored to briefly assess our efforts to reduce some of  Xx-  /those impediments.Ox% {O-ԍId. at 185200.O For example, we discussed our efforts regarding local restrictions on  Xa-  receiving equipment,GaZ% {Ol -ԍId. at 186.G inside wiring rules,N a% {O -ԍId. at 18991.N and pole attachments.M!a~% {O -ԍId. at 195.M We request information   regarding other existing or potential regulatory impediments that may have the effect of deterring   Lentry or preventing expansion of competitive opportunities in video program delivery markets.  X -  18.` ` In addition, we ask commenters to identify specific statutory provisions that are   perceived as advancing or inhibiting competition or that have differential application and may   distort competition among MVPDs, or that restrain competitive opportunities within markets for   the delivery of multichannel video programming. Commenters are requested to provide specific   jexamples of why or how such statutory provisions are not procompetitive. We seek comment   .on such provisions regardless of whether they directly relate to the existing jurisdiction of the   Commission if it is believed they effect competition in the MVPD market. Further, we ask   commenters to identify specific Commission rules, policies or regulations that ought be   reexamined in light of current competitive opportunities within multichannel video programming markets.  X-  X-III.IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996  X-  b19.` ` A number of the provisions of the 1996 Act were intended to encourage  X-  competition in markets for the delivery of video programming.g"% yO-ԍH.R. Rep. No. 104458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996).g The 1996 Competition Report   .described the Commission's actions through 1996 to implement the provisions of the 1996 Act   that were expected to affect competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. In  X-  that report, we also discussed the initial effects of the revised regulatory policy on competition.   In the 1997 Competition Report, we would like to update our assessment of the effects of the   Zvarious provisions of the 1996 Act on the status of competition. We seek comment on the impact of these various regulatory changes described below on competition. "$ ",-(-(ZZz"Ԍ X-  20.` ` There are ten specific changes from the 1996 Act relating to competition in video markets on which comment would be useful:  X- ]OVS. Section 653 of the Communications Acte#% yO4-ԍSection 651(a)(3)(4), 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3)(4).e provides a new means of entering video   programming market under the "open video system" ("OVS") rules. The new "OVS" framework   permits telephone companies and other providers of multichannel video programming to offer   their own programming directly to subscribers provided they simultaneously offer to provide   transmission services to unaffiliated programming providers. The Commission has promulgated  XH-  xrules pursuant to this new statutory provision$HX% {OQ - ԍImplementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open Video Systems), CS Docket  {O -  No. 9646, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 14639 (1996); Implementation of  {O -  Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open Video Systems), CS Docket No. 9646, Second Report  {O -  and Order, 11 FCC Rcd4652, (1996); Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open  {Oy-  Video Systems), CS Docket No. 9646, Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11FCC Rcd  {OC-  20227 (1996); Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open Video Systems), Second  {O -  Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97129, 1997 WL 180209 (Apr. 15, 1997); Implementation of Section 302 of the  {O-  Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open Video Systems), CS Docket No. 9646, Fourth Report and Order, FCC 97 {O-130 (Apr. 15, 1997), summarized atĠ 62 Fed. Reg. 26235 (May 13, 1997). that are intended to facilitate both facilities based   market entry and programming competition. The Commission has approved nine applications for   certification of proposed OVS operations. Of these applications, one was made by a LEC and   eight by others. We seek information on the plans of LECs and others with respect to the provision of video programming using the OVS rules.  X - Preemption of restrictions on overtheair reception devices. Section 207 of the 1996 Act   directed the Commission to "promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's   iability to receive video programming services through devices designed for overtheair reception   of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast  Xb-  -satellite services."D%b: % yOM-ԍ1996 Act, sec. 207.D This provision is intended to ensure that consumers have access to a broad   [range of video programming services and to foster competition among different types of video   programming services. In response to this provision, the Commission promulgated rules that  X-  preempt government and nongovernment restrictions on the installation of receiving equipment.& % {O -  ԍSee Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Restrictions on OvertheAir  {Ob!-  Reception Devices: Television Broadcast and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, CS Docket No. 9683,  {O,"-  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 15097 (1996). Petitions for reconsideration are pending. See also   Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite  {O#-  Earth Stations, IB Docket No. 9559, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd  yO$-5809 (1996).    /What effect has the implementation of this provision had on competition in the markets for delivery of video programming? " J&,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- mChange in cable television definition. Section 602(7) of the Communications Act was  X-  Mamended by the 1996 Act to narrow the definition of a cable system to exempt facilities that   =serve buildings under different ownership, control, or management, provided that the facilities  X-  do not use public rightsofway.'Z% yO4- ԍ1996 Act, sec.301(a)(2) (codified as Communications Act 602(7), 47 U.S.C.  22(7)). The redefinition   effectively eliminated the commonly owned building requirement for a SMATV system serving multiple buildings.  {O-This redefinition was recommended in the 1994 Competition Report, 9 FCC Rcd at 7558 252. Thus, it provided that a SMATV operator can expand service   jto MDUs with different owners without obtaining a cable franchise, provided that the operator   does not use a public rightofway. We request comment on the effect of this revised definition   <on competition. Specifically, we seek information about any actual or planned entry or expansion by SMATV operators that was stimulated by this new provision in the law.  X1- @New "effective competition" definition. Section 623 of the Communications Act was   amended by 1996 Act to broaden the definition of effective competition so that the cable service   rates of an incumbent cable operator are deregulated when a LEC or its affiliate (or any MVPD   using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers comparable video programming in the  X -  local franchise area by any means other than direct to home satellite ("DTH") services.( % {Op- ԍ1996 Act, sec. 301(b)(3). See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications  {O:-Act of 1996, CS Docket 9685, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996). We   jrequest comment on the effect of this change on competition and data on the rates charged for cable service in areas where LEC effective competition exists.  X-  Xy- !Changes in rate regulation provisions. A number of provisions of the 1996 Act directly   affect the cable industry and the regulation of its rates. Section 301(c) of the 1996 Act contains   immediately effective deregulatory provisions for small cable system operators, defined as cable  X4-  operators in franchise areas where they serve 50,000 or fewer subscribers. )4F% yO+- /ԍ1996 Act, sec. 301(c). This deregulation is limited to the cable programming service ("CPS") tier unless the operator had only a single tier as of December 31, 1994, in which case all tiers are deregulated.  Section301(b) of the   Z1996 Act contains deregulatory provisions for large cable system operators that take effect within  X-  !three years of enactment of the 1996 Act.*% yOU-ԍ1996 Act, sec.301(b) (codified as Communications Act 623(m), 47 U.S.C. 543(m)). We request comment on the effect of these   provisions on competition and on the rates charged for cable service compared to those charged by competing MVPDs.  X- Rate competition in multiple dwelling units. Section 623(d) of the Communications Act   Ncontains provisions that generally require cable operators to charge uniform rates in the   geographic areas they serve. This provision was amended in the 1996 Act so that it is"|. *,-(-(ZZ"  X-  Zinapplicable to nonpredatory bulk discounts to MDUs.d+\% {Oy- ԍ1996 Act, sec.301 (codified as Communications Act 623(d), 47 U.S.C. 543(d). See Implementation of  {OC-  jCable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CS Docket 9685, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).d We seek comment on the development   in competition in MDUs and on the consequences of this change. How are these developments affecting competition?  X- 4Competition in MVPD "navigation" equipment markets. Section 629 of the   Communications Act was added in the 1996 Act and contains provisions to encourage   competition in MVPD equipment markets. This section requires the Commission to adopt   regulations to assure the commercial availability of navigation equipment, such as converter   -boxes, interactive communications equipment and other equipment used by consumers to access  X1-  zmultichannel video programming services.,1% yO -ԍ1996 Act, sec.304 (codified as Communications Act 629, 47 U.S.C. 549). However, the Commission must not jeopardize   security of video programming services or impede the prevention of theft of service. To fulfill  X -  this statutory requirement, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking  X -  comment on technical and economic issues related to the commercial availability of equipment.r-^ |% {O- lԍImplementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability of  {O-  Navigation Devices, CS Docket No. 9780, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 9753 (Feb. 20, 1997), summarized  {O-at 62 Fed. Reg. 10011 (Mar. 5, 1997).r   We seek comment on developments in the equipment markets involved as they relate to this statutory provision.  X- "Public utility company market entrants. Pursuant to Section 103 of the 1996 Act, the   Commission established rules that enable public utility holding companies to enter into   telecommunications, information services and video markets and has approved exempt  XM-  telecommunications company status for 24 companies..\M% yO- ԍ1996 Act, sec.103 (codified as Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935  34, 15 U.S.C. 79z5c);  {Oh-  wImplementation of Section 34(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as added by Section 103 of  {O2-the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GC Docket No. 96101, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11377 (1996). We seek information on the existing or   potential entry of public utility holding companies into the video marketplace and their effect on competition.  X- ]Pole Attachment Regulation. Section 703 of the 1996 Act expands the application of the  X-  pole attachment rate formula to include telecommunications carriers in addition to cable systems./ % yOQ#-ԍ1996 Act, sec. 703 (codified as Communications Act 224, 47 U.S.C. 224).   Section 224(a)(4) of the Communications Act now defines "pole attachment" as "any attachment   by a cable system or provider of telecommunications service to a pole, duct, conduit, or rightof"V /,-(-(ZZp"ԫ X-  xway owned or controlled by a utility."J0% yOy-ԍ47 U.S.C. 224(a)(4).J However, poles, ducts, conduits, or rightsofway owned   [or controlled by any railroad, cooperative, or any federal or any state entity are not considered  X-  jutilities for this purpose and are exempt from this regulation.J1X% yO-ԍ47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1).J We seek comment on the effect   on competition that this exemption has on entities offering telecommunications services, including   video services. In particular, we seek information to demonstrate whether the rates charged for   pole attachments by cooperatives and municipalities, especially in rural areas, impede or promote  Xv-competition.2v% {O - ԍSection 257 Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses, GN Docket No. 96113, Report, FCC 97164 175 (May 8, 1997).  XH- Elimination of entrance barriers for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Finally, pursuant  X1-  zto Section 101 of the 1996 Act,31B% yO$-ԍ1996 Act, sec.101 (codified as Communications Act 257, 47 U.S.C. 257).Ĉ the Commission has instituted a proceeding to identify and   eliminate market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and  X -  ownership of telecommunications services.4 % {O- ԍSection 257 Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses, GN Docket No. 96113, Report, FCC 97164, (May 8, 1997). We seek comment on this provision in the context of general competitive developments in the markets for the delivery of video programming.  X - IV.VIDEO DESCRIPTION  X-  21.` ` In our Video Accessibility Report to Congress required by Section 713(f) of the   zCommunications Act, we concluded that the record before us was insufficient to assess the  Xd-  appropriate methods and schedules for phasing video description into the marketplace.f5d, % yOA- LԍCongress directed the Commission to commence an inquiry within six months of the enactment of the 1996   Act and to report to Congress on its findings, including an assessment of the appropriate methods and schedules for   phasing video descriptions into the marketplace, technical and quality standards for video descriptions, a definition   ,of programming for which video descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal issues that the Commission deems appropriate. 47 U.S.C. 613(f).f Video   description is an aural description of a program's key visual elements that are inserted during the   jnatural pauses in the program's dialogue. It generally describes an action that is otherwise not  X-  kreflected in the dialogue such as the movement of a person in a scene.}6% {O#-ԍSee Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 1925354 9495.} We decided in our  X-  Report that the best course was to continue to monitor the deployment of video description and   the development of standards for new video technologies that will afford greater accessibility of   /video description. We further stated that in the context of the 1997 Competition Report we   mwould gather and evaluate information regarding the deployment of secondary audio"n6,-(-(ZZ"  X-  programming ("SAP") channelsY7D% yOy- ԍVideo description requires the development of a second script and is transmitted using the SAP channel.  yOA-  jThe SAP channel allows for the delivery of a third audio track for a program in addition to the monaural and   wstereophonic audio tracks. In order for a viewer to access the SAP channel, he or she must have a television or VCR   Zequipped to receive this channel. A consumer who has a television or VCR with SAP capability can activate this   feature to receive the video description or other audio, if available, in lieu of the primary soundtrack. At this time,   however, not all broadcast television stations or other video distributors are able to transmit the SAP channel and  {O)-  Jonly about half of the nation's homes have televisions or VCRs with the capability to receive the SAP channel.  See  {O-Video Accessibility Report, 11 FCC Rcd at 1925657 10005. Y and digital technology that will enable video providers and programmers to include video description.  X-  22.` ` In the Video Accessibility Report, the Commission found that any schedule for   expanding the use of video description depends, in part, on implementation of advanced digital   television which can make the distribution of additional audio channels feasible and facilitate the  Xx-  implementation of video description.M8x% {O-ԍId. at 19270 139.M We concluded that funding also will effect any schedule   for the widespread use of video description since it appears that advertising support alone is  XJ-  unlikely to be sufficient to fund this service, given the costs involved.D9Jf % {Oa-ԍId. 140.D Furthermore, we stated   ithat there are certain legal issues, such as copyright matters, that remain unresolved and are likely  X -to require a Federal reassessment of the applicability of existing laws.P: % {O-ԍId. at 1927071 141.P  X -  23.` ` Accordingly, we seek data and information here regarding video description that   will permit us to provide Congress with additional findings on methods and schedules for   Lproviding greater accessibility to persons with visual disabilities. We request information and   comment on developments regarding the implementation of video description of video  X-  programming since the Video Accessibility Report was submitted to Congress. We specifically   zsolicit data on the number of broadcast television stations and MVPDs currently capable of   transmitting and decoding a SAP signal and data on the costs of adding this capability. We   <request information regarding the cost of providing video description for video programming and   ipossible funding mechanisms. We also seek information on whether the implementation of digital   ytechnologies will provide additional audio channels that would increase the feasibility of video   description. We further ask commenters to focus on the specific methods and schedules for   ensuring that video programming includes descriptions, technical and quality standards and other   relevant legal and policy issues. Moreover, we request comment on any efforts by persons with   disabilities and the video programming industries regarding coordination in new technology   standard setting and funding mechanisms. We will use this additional record to better assess  X-those issues that were not fully addressed in the Video Accessibility Report.  Xk- "k :,-(-(ZZ"  X-V.PROCEDURAL MATTERS   X-  24.` ` This Notice is issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, 613   and 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Pursuant to applicable procedures   set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415 and 1.419,  X-  interested parties may file comments on or before July 23, 1997, and reply comments on or  Xx-  before August 20, 1997. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an original   and four copies of all comments, reply comments and supporting comments. If participants want   each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies   must be filed. We also encourage commenters to include a computer disk copy of their   kcomments with their official filings whenever possible, as this will allow the comments to be   easily transferred to the Commission's Internet site. Submissions on disk should be on 3.5 inch   diskettes, formatted for Windows 3.1. These filings should be in WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows  X -  format with the whole submission contained in one file. Comments and reply comments should   jbe sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.   M20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular   Nbusiness hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  XM-  $25.` ` There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements applicable to this proceeding  X6-pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.1204(a)(4).V   X-  B26.` ` Further information on this proceeding may be obtained by contacting Marcia   Glauberman in the Cable Services Bureau at (202) 4187200 or Rebecca Dorch in the Office of General Counsel at (202) 4181880. XX` ` X XXhh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(#h ` ` X XXhh,William F. Caton(#h ` ` X XXhh,Acting Secretary