Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                                  STATEMENT OF

                        COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL


   Re: In the Matter of Oceanic Time Warner Cable, a subsidiary of Time
   Warner Cable, Inc.; Oceanic Time Warner Cable, a division of Time Warner
   Cable, Inc., Oceanic Kauai Cable System; Oceanic Time Warner Cable, a
   division of Time Warner Cable, Inc., Oceanic Oahu Central Cable System;
   Cox Communications, Inc., Fairfax County, Virginia Cable System; File Nos.
   EB-07-SE-351, EB-07-SE-352; NAL/Acct. Nos. 200832100074, 200932100001,
   200932100002, 200932100003, 200932100008, 200932100022, and 200932100023;
   Order on Review

   The Commission through this Order appropriately determines that the
   migration of programming to a switched digital video ("SDV") platform does
   not violate Sections 76.1201 or 76.640(b) of our rules. Deployment of SDV
   technology to deliver video programming is consistent with the plain
   language of the regulations. It also can serve the public interest by
   allowing cable operators to comply with the Commission's "viewability"
   rules and deliver more programming options, including HD channels and
   niche programming, without displacing significant numbers of existing

   I only concur, however, with respect to the determination that the SDV
   deployment requires notification to local franchising authorities and
   customers. Whether the SDV deployment here - because of its effect on the
   channels accessible to certain subscribers who purchased unidirectional
   digital cable devices on their own in the retail market - constitutes a
   "change in service" requiring notice under Section 76.1603(c) is not
   without some doubt. Nevertheless, the broader ramifications of our
   decision here for the industry's deployment of SDV technology, which has
   largely been on hold since the enforcement proceedings became public,
   justify resolution of these issues now.

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52