[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12458-12462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5718]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 07-51; FCC 10-35]


Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in 
Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; policy statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is the Commission's Second Report and Order 
concerning video services in multiple dwelling units (``MDUs''), which 
are apartment and condominium buildings and centrally managed 
residential real estate developments. The Second Report and Order 
resolves some issues the Commission left undecided in its First Report 
and Order, concerning two practices called ``bulk billing'' and 
``marketing exclusivity.'' The Second Report and Order concludes that 
bulk billing and marketing exclusivity, at present, create more 
benefits than harms for MDU residents. The Commission therefore allows 
both practices to continue.

DATES: Effective April 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, please contact John W. Berresford, (202) 418-1886, or Holly 
Saurer, (202) 418-7283, both of the Policy Division, Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Second Report and Order in MB Docket No. 
07-51, FCC 10-35, adopted March 1, 2010, and released March 2, 2010. 
The full text of this document is available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS 
(http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (The document will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete 
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this 
document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio 
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Summary of the Second Report and Order

    1. The Second Report and Order is an outgrowth of the Commission's 
first Report and Order in the same proceeding, which was released on 
October 31, 2007. Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video 
Services in Multiple Dwelling Units & Other Real Estate Developments, 
Report & Order & Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 
20235 (2007), affirmed, National Cable & Telecommun. Ass'n v. FCC, 567 
F.3d 659 (DC Cir. 2009). The first Report and Order prohibited certain 
multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs,'' specifically 
cable operators and common carriers) from engaging in so-called 
``building exclusivity'' with MDUs--arrangements whereby only one such 
MVPD was allowed to provide MVPD service in an MDU. The first Report 
and Order ended with a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
raised issues about the similar practices of bulk billing and marketing 
exclusivity. The Second Report and Order resolves those issues.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Second Report and Order does not resolve another issue 
raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is 
whether the First Report and Order's ban of building exclusivity 
should be expanded to apply to MVPDs other than cable operators and 
common carriers, specifically DBS service providers and so-called 
``private cable operators.'' That issue will be resolved in a future 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Much of the history of this proceeding, definitions of key 
terms, factual descriptions of MDUs and their residents, and 
descriptions of pertinent statutes (especially 47 U.S.C. 548(b)) are 
set forth in the Federal Register description of the first Report and 
Order, 73 FR 1080-01 (Jan. 7, 2008). Bulk billing is an arrangement in 
which one MVPD provides video service to every resident of an MDU, 
usually at a significant discount from the retail rate that each 
resident would pay if he or she contracted with the MVPD individually. 
Marketing exclusivity is a practice by which an MDU owner grants one 
MVPD certain specific marketing advantages on an exclusive basis (such 
as the exclusive right to have its brand on the MDU's Web page and to 
market its services in common areas). The issues resolved in the Second 
Report and Order were whether to allow any kind of MVPD to engage in 
bulk billing or marketing exclusivity.
    3. In response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission received filings from major cable operators, their trade 
association, and incumbent common carriers (also called local exchange 
carriers or ``LECs''), the two major Direct Broadcast Satellite 
(``DBS'') providers (DIRECTV and DISH Network), nine private cable 
operators (``PCOs''), PCOs' national trade association, their 
financiers, operators of new wire- or fiber-based systems that do not 
use public rights of way, approximately 20 real estate interests (MDU 
developers, builders, owners, and managers and their trade associations 
and consultants), several individual homeowners' associations and 
educational institutions that subscribe to PCOs' services, municipal 
governments, the National Governors Association, and hundreds of 
individual consumers.

II. Discussion

A. Bulk Billing Arrangements

1. Use of Bulk Billing Arrangements
    4. In a typical bulk billing arrangement, the MDU building 
subscribes to the MVPD provider's service, agreeing to pay the MVPD a 
monthly fee. The MVPD provider then connects its service to every unit 
in the MDU. The MVPD typically bills its fee every month to the MDU 
building, which factors each unit's pro rata charge into the unit's 
rent, condominium fee,

[[Page 12459]]

or homeowners' association dues. The MDU building owner must pay the 
monthly fee to the MVPD provider.
    5. Bulk billing arrangements vary in duration and grounds for 
termination. They may or may not be coupled with some form of explicit 
exclusivity, where allowed under our rules.\2\ They usually provide 
each MDU with the chosen MVPD's Basic or Expanded Basic video service, 
and sometimes also with voice, Internet access, and/or alarm service. 
In most bulk billing arrangements, the MDU's residents receive a 
significant discount from the bulk billing MVPD's standard retail rate. 
Residents may also purchase additional services, such as premium 
channels, directly from the MVPD provider at the regular retail rate. 
The record indicates that bulk billing arrangements occur in a 
significant number of MDUs, but not in most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any such building exclusivity, if executed by a cable 
operator or common carrier, is prohibited by the First Report and 
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. It appears that one of the factors that makes bulk billing at 
discounted rates practical for the bulk billing MVPD is that it 
authorizes uninterrupted service to every residential unit in the MDU 
building or suburban development. The MVPD provider is spared the 
significant expenses of selling to each resident, making credit checks 
and collecting deposits, managing bad debt and theft of service, and 
frequently sending personnel and vehicles to the building to place and 
remove boxes and turn service on and off in different units.
    7. A bulk billing agreement does not prevent MDU residents from 
obtaining services from another MVPD, assuming that another has wired 
or will wire the MDU, if necessary. Some residents may also place 
satellite dishes on their premises, depending on the physical 
configuration of their units.\3\ Any such residents, however, must pay 
for both the bulk billing MVPD and the services of the other MVPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rules, 47 
CFR 1.4000, permit MDU residents to place DBS receiving antennas on 
their premises under some circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As already noted, bulk billing does not physically or legally 
prevent a second MVPD from providing service to an MDU resident and 
does not prevent such an MVPD from wiring an MDU for its service, 
subject to the permission of the MDU owner. The arrangement may deter a 
second MVPD in some cases, however, because it limits the entrant's 
patronage to residents in the MDU who are willing to pay for the 
services of two MVPDs or who simply insist on receiving the services of 
the second MVPD for the characteristics of that service (e.g., high-
speed broadband for a home business).
2. Benefits and Harms of Bulk Billing Arrangements
    9. The chief benefits that bulk billing brings to MDU residents in 
most cases are lower prices, packages of programming tailored to the 
particular interests and needs of the MDU's residents, and avoidance of 
the inconvenience of establishing or disconnecting MVPD service. The 
chief harms that bulk billing causes to MDU residents are that it may 
discourage a second MVPD from entering an MDU and, even if it does not, 
MDU residents who want service from the second MVPD must pay for two 
MVPD services. After weighing these considerations carefully and 
examining current marketplace conditions, we conclude that the benefits 
of bulk billing are greater than its harms in the majority of cases. 
Accordingly, we will not prohibit bulk billing at this time.
    10. Benefits of Bulk Billing Arrangements. PCOs and some new cable 
operators claim that bulk billing is essential to their health or 
survival, that bulk billing is necessary if they are to secure 
financing, continue to grow, and deploy broadband in MDUs. PCOs in 
particular state that, if their existing bulk billing arrangements were 
invalidated, they would be automatically in default of many loan 
agreements, endangering their existing businesses and making future 
financing for expansion very difficult. They fear that without bulk 
billing many of them will go out of business and the few survivors will 
find it difficult to expand. This harm to them, they emphasize, will 
harm consumers, because consumers will lose the benefits of 
competition, choice, and innovation (including broadband deployment) 
that bulk billing MVPDs can bring to MDU residents.
    11. MVPDs, real estate interests, and some consumers also claim 
that bulk billing is satisfactory to most MDU residents and is even a 
major attraction to some MDU residents. They point out that bulk 
billing enables lower income tenants to avoid cable rate increases (if 
it provides for steady prices for several years); these tenants also 
avoid high deposits and the limitations imposed by their own imperfect 
credit histories. In these ways, bulk billing can make MVPD services 
available to some MDU residents who otherwise would not be able to 
afford them. Real estate interests and some others defend bulk billing, 
as they do building and marketing exclusivity, as a ``bargaining chip'' 
that they can give to a favored MVPD in exchange for the MVPD's paying 
to wire their buildings.
    12. Bulk billing's supporters claim that it is often awarded to the 
``best'' MVPD in the area and is sometimes coupled with enforceable 
standards ensuring that the bulk billing MVPD establishes prices for 
its services below its ordinary retail rates (and below those charged 
by new entrants), keeps those prices steady in contrast to major MVPDs' 
periodically raising rates, provides high quality service, tailors its 
set of channels and programs to fit the MDU residents' particular 
interests, and continually improves its offerings with new technology. 
Discounts of 30% from the bulk billing MVPD's retail rates are common, 
and can be as high as 75%. Century of Boca Raton Umbrella Association, 
for example, describes a community where bulk billed MDU residents pay 
$28 monthly for basic cable and the neighboring incumbent cable 
operator charges $48, or 70% more, for its basic service; and Camden 
Property Trust states that each of its bulk billed MDU residents, in 
addition to enjoying a significant discount from the retail rates 
charged by competing MVPDs, also saves up to $200 on deposits and 
service establishment fees. Bulk billers' low prices for video services 
enable them to charge low prices for the ``triple play'' (a combined 
offering of voice service, video service, and Internet access). The low 
prices are made possible, MVPDs and real estate interests say, by the 
savings in their costs that bulk billing makes possible. They argue 
that prices for the vast majority of MDU residents subject to bulk 
billing will rise if bulk billing ends.
    13. In addition to lower-than-retail rates, supporters of bulk 
billing state that it often makes possible specialized services for MDU 
residents. The Independent Multifamily Communications Council lists 
security channels, closed circuit monitoring, community channels (that 
have educated residents about, among other matters, the recent 
conversion of broadcast television to digital-only transmission), WiFi, 
and free broadband access in MDUs' common areas; the National 
Association of Home Builders mentions free cable service provided to 
club houses, recreation areas, and meeting rooms in MDUs; and Verizon 
mentions ``concierge service with a dedicated customer service 
representative from the video service provider.''
    14. Commenters defending bulk billing also state that, by sparing 
individual MDU residents the decision about their MVPD service 
provider, they avoid placing an unwanted burden on

[[Page 12460]]

the residents who are satisfied with the bulk billing MVPD. These 
residents are spared costs and inconveniences they would incur--the 
time to decide among competing MVPDs, the cost of deposits, the taking 
of a vacation day to let the installer in, and charges for installation 
and the establishment and disconnection of service. These savings are 
particularly important to lower income households and persons who are 
transient and value freedom from the inconvenience of establishing and 
terminating service repeatedly.
    15. Supporters of bulk billing also emphasize that, unlike building 
exclusivity, bulk billing does not prevent a second or third MVPD from 
entering and wiring an MDU building or an MDU resident from subscribing 
to that MVPD's service. One bulk billing cable operator estimates that 
DBS has a 30% market share in its MDU, approximately DBS's national 
average. They also claim that residents of MDU buildings that have bulk 
billing chose to live there and should not be heard to complain and 
seek to deprive the majority of residents who are satisfied with it.
    16. Defenders of bulk billing emphasize how competitive the 
residential real estate market is. They characterize MVPD service as 
just another amenity of an MDU building that the owner can provide, 
such as a swimming pool, a fitness center, or valet services; with 
those amenities, some benefit from them, some do not, but all pay for 
them whether the assessment is itemized or not.
    17. Harms of Bulk Billing Arrangements. Opponents of bulk billing 
claim that bulk billing arrangements reduce a second MVPD's incentive 
to wire a building for its services (including broadband) and frustrate 
the ability of residents of an MDU to receive the service of the second 
MVPD they want (by forcing such residents to pay for two MVPDs' 
services). They argue that bulk billing saddles MDU residents with a de 
facto exclusive provider with no incentive to offer or maintain pricing 
and programming at market levels. Some MDU residents subject to bulk 
billing arrangements object strongly to being forced to pay twice if 
they want to obtain service from an MVPD other than the bulk billing 
one. The need to pay twice in order to receive the preferred service 
falls especially heavily on persons with limited incomes.
    18. Individual commenters have brought to our attention instances--
suburban real estate developments of owned homes, not rentals--in which 
they allege that bulk billing arrangements have been entered into not 
by MDU residents or their elected representatives (e.g., homeowners 
associations or ``HOAs''), but by builders and developers of the 
developments. These commenters claim that developers make bulk billing 
arrangements with MVPDs in which they have financial interests or from 
which they receive a stream of revenue. There are allegations that some 
of these ``sweetheart'' arrangements last long periods, up to 75 years 
in one case; that the arrangements were entered into before any 
association of actual homeowners came into existence and cannot be 
nullified by the actual homeowners; and that the bulk billing MVPD is 
held to no performance standards, installs inferior facilities, charges 
high prices, and fails to innovate by deploying the triple play. One 
City government in Florida (Weston) states that most of their residents 
are subject to some of these practices.
3. Conclusion
    19. The Commission concludes that the benefits of bulk billing 
outweigh its harms. A key consideration is that bulk billing, unlike 
building exclusivity, does not hinder significantly the entry into an 
MDU by a second MVPD and does not prevent consumers from choosing the 
new entrant. Indeed, many commenters indicate that second MVPD 
providers wire MDUs for video service even in the presence of bulk 
billing arrangements and that many consumers choose to subscribe to 
those second video services. Especially significant is that that 
Verizon, which more than any other commenter in the earlier proceedings 
argued that building exclusivity clauses deterred competition and other 
pro-consumer effects, makes no claim in its filings herein that bulk 
billing hinders significantly or, as a practical matter, prevents it 
from introducing its service into MDUs. Bulk billing, accordingly, does 
not have nearly the harmful entry-barring or -hindering effect on 
consumers that exists in the case of building exclusivity.
    20. The incidents of consumers being subjected either to prices 
that they believed were not discounted or to inferior service under 
certain bulk billing deals are troublesome. Based on a review of the 
record, however, they appear to be few, isolated, and atypical of bulk 
billing as a whole. And even in some of these cases, a second video 
provider is present in the MDU and large numbers of residents subscribe 
to its video service. Also, nearly all of these cases involve owner 
premises such as condominiums or suburban developments rather than 
rental properties. A significant number of states have statutes that, 
if certain requirements are satisfied, may provide some relief to such 
homeowners by allowing them, once they have taken control of an HOA 
from the developer, to void contracts that the developer has entered 
into. Two of these states are Florida and Virginia, in which reside 
most of the MDU residents who have filed comments in this proceeding 
objecting to bulk billing. We note that legal action is not the only 
possible relief for MDU residents subject to bulk billed service that 
they find unsatisfactory. Most of the consumers' complaints in this 
proceeding came from a particular MDU where the video service provider 
being complained of was effectively replaced by another cable operator.
    21. Finally, it would be a disservice to the public interest if, in 
order to benefit a few residents, the Commission prohibited bulk 
billing, because so doing would result in higher MVPD service charges 
for the vast majority of MDU residents who are content with such 
arrangements. Based on the evidence in the record before us, we choose 
not to take action that would raise prices for most MDU residents who 
are subject to bulk billing. Accordingly, we will allow bulk billing by 
all MVPDs to continue because, under current marketplace conditions, it 
is clear that it has significant pro-consumer effects.\4\ The 
Commission may re-examine the issue if marketplace conditions change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We also decline to create a system in which we would 
adjudicate specific bulk billing arrangements. As the Commission 
stated in the first Report and Order about such proposals for MDU 
exclusivity clauses, such adjudications--each potentially involving 
individual measurements of prices, quality and quantity of channels, 
competition, the MDU's characteristics, and other matters--are 
essentially local issues that would be difficult to deal with on a 
Commission level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exclusive Marketing Arrangements

1. Use of Exclusive Marketing Arrangements
    22. We define an exclusive marketing arrangement as an arrangement 
between an MDU owner and an MVPD, in a written agreement or in 
practice, that gives the MVPD, usually in exchange for some 
consideration, the exclusive right to certain means of marketing its 
service to residents in the MDU. Typically, this includes advertising 
in the MDU's common areas, placement of the MVPD's brand on the MDU 
building's web page, placement of the MVPD's brochures in ``welcome 
packs'' for new

[[Page 12461]]

residents, sponsoring events on the premises of the MDU, and slipping 
brochures under residents' doors.
    23. The comments indicate that marketing exclusivity arrangements 
occur in a significant number of MDUs, but not in most of them. It 
appears that all types of MVPDs use marketing exclusivity; one industry 
association states that such arrangements are more common in real 
estate developments than multi-tenant structures. The typical marketing 
exclusivity arrangement lasts for a few years. Some MVPDs and real 
estate interests make widespread use of marketing exclusivity. No MVPD, 
however, claims that marketing exclusivity is necessary for its entry 
into an MDU or its financial survival, or that any MVPD has failed to 
enter an MDU or gone out of business because another MVPD had a 
marketing exclusivity arrangement.
2. Benefits and Harms of Exclusive Marketing Arrangements
    24. The record clearly shows that marketing exclusivity 
arrangements have some modest beneficial effects for consumers and no 
significantly harmful ones. The balance of these considerations favors 
allowing the continued use of marketing exclusivity arrangements.
    25. Benefits of Exclusive Marketing Arrangements. Proponents of 
marketing exclusivity arrangements state that the arrangements provide 
readily accessible information to MDU residents about an MVPD provider 
and allow their residents to make more informed decisions. In exchange 
for receiving marketing exclusivity, an MVPD provider may afford the 
MDU and its residents lower rates and other benefits. The added revenue 
stream that can result from marketing exclusivity may also help the MDU 
owner or MVPD provider obtain financing to fund the expensive wiring of 
an MDU building. Marketing exclusivity does not explicitly or in 
practical effect bar, or significantly hinder, other MVPD providers 
from wiring an MDU or prevent any residents from choosing another MVPD 
if they do not want service from the provider that has the exclusive 
marketing arrangement. Real estate interests, in defense of marketing 
exclusivity arrangements, make the same ``bargaining chip'' point they 
made in favor of building exclusivity and bulk billing, namely that 
marketing exclusivity is something they can give to an MVPD in exchange 
for which the MVPD may pay a greater share of the wiring costs or may 
agree to provide better service, thus benefiting MDU residents.
    26. Finally, one PCO that concentrates on smaller markets in which 
it is a new entrant, states that exclusive marketing arrangements are 
an especially valuable means of advertising for small new entrants who 
cannot afford high-priced mass media advertising that large incumbent 
cable operators and LECs regularly use. In the same vein, Verizon 
states that such one-building-at-a-time arrangements help a new entrant 
to overcome the greater name recognition of the entrenched incumbent 
cable operator.
    27. Harms of Exclusive Marketing Arrangements. Lafayette Utilities 
System, Marco Island Cable, and the City of Reedsburg, Wisconsin, claim 
that marketing exclusivity arrangements make it difficult or costly for 
competitors other than the one with marketing exclusivity to 
communicate with MDU residents and hurt MDU residents by making it more 
difficult for them to find out about the other competitors. None of 
these commenters cites any instance where marketing exclusivity has, in 
practical effect, excluded or hindered a competitor from entering an 
MDU. Residents may still subscribe to the other MVPDs' services, and 
MVPDs are still able to reach residents through many other channels 
such as television, mail, newspapers, billboards, and sponsorship of 
public events.
3. Conclusion
    28. The record does not support prohibiting or regulating exclusive 
marketing arrangements in order to protect competition or consumers. 
Although marketing exclusivity confers an advantage on the MVPD in 
whose favor the arrangement runs, it appears to be a slight one and 
there is no indication that it prevents or significantly hinders other 
MVPDs from providing video services in MDUs with such arrangements. 
Neither does marketing exclusivity prevent or significantly hinder 
other MVPDs from reaching MDU residents via television, radio, and 
other media; deter MDU residents from subscribing to other MVPDs' 
services; slow the evolution of competing wireless technologies; raise 
prices to consumers; or, by unfair methods, acts, or practices, have 
the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing other 
MVPDs from providing programming to consumers, especially programming 
ordinarily found on broadcast and cable video systems.
    29. On the other hand, marketing exclusivity appears to have the 
efficiencies listed above, the benefits of which appear to flow through 
to MDU residents. The balance of consumer harms and benefits for 
marketing exclusivity is thus significantly pro-consumer. Accordingly, 
we find that the record does not support a prohibition or any 
limitation on marketing exclusivity arrangements in MDUs.

C. Petition of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company

    30. An affiliate of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company 
(``Shentel'') is a common carrier in some areas and, in other areas, is 
a PCO (through an affiliate named Shentel Converged). Shentel 
petitioned for clarification or reconsideration of the first Report and 
Order, seeking a ruling that that decision's prohibition of MDU 
building exclusivity clauses does not apply to the PCO operations of 
Shentel Converged. The Commission denies the petition on the grounds 
that the express language of Section 628(j) of the Communications Act, 
47 U.S.C. 548(j), requires that the prohibition apply to all common 
carriers and their affiliates that provide video service, including the 
PCO operations of Shentel Converged.
    31. Shentel also asked the Commission to forbear, under Section 10 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 160, from applying the prohibition of MDU 
building exclusivity to Shentel Converged. The Commission declines that 
forbearance on the grounds that Shentel has not satisfied the 
requirements for forbearance set forth in Section 10. Shentel may 
submit another, fully supported, request for forbearance in the future.

D. Miscellaneous

    32. The Second Report and Order also denies other requests that 
amounted to unsupported petitions for reconsideration of the first 
Report and Order and to petitions to address extraneous matters.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    33. The Second Report and Order does not contain new or modified 
information collection requirements subject to the paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does 
not contain any new or modified ``information collection burdens for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    34. Because the Second Report and Order neither promulgates nor 
adopts

[[Page 12462]]

any new or revised rules or regulations that affect small businesses, 
it is not necessary to write a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
for it.

C. Congressional Review Act

    35. The Commission will not send a copy of this Second Report and 
Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because the Second Report and Order adopts no rules of 
any kind.

D. Additional Information

    36. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact 
John W. Berresford, (202) 418-1886, or Holly Saurer, (202) 418-7283, 
both of the Policy Division, Media Bureau.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    37. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sections 1, 2 (a), 4(i) 157 nt., 201(b), 303(r),307-10, 
335(a), 601(4, 6), and 628(b, c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157 nt., 201(b), 303(r), 307-
10, 335(a), 521(4, 6), and 548(b, c), this Second Report and Order is 
adopted.
    38. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
160, the Petition for Clarification, or, in the Alternative, 
Reconsideration filed by Shenandoah Telecommunications Company 
concerning 47 CFR 76.2000 is denied without prejudice to its submission 
of a petition for forbearance pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5718 Filed 3-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P