DOCSLIB.ORG

EXHIBIT 1 References

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EXHIBIT 1 References EXHIBIT 1 References • Footnote 2: 001 • Footnote 3: 015 • Footnote 4: 017 • Footnote 5: 142 • Footnote 6: 156 • Footnote 7: 157 • Footnote 8: 163 • Footnote 9: 166 • Footnote 10: 176 • Footnote 11: 181 12/14/2017 Fact-Checking FCC Chair Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality 'Facts' Layer 8 We fact-checked FCC Chair Ajit Pai’s net neutrality ‘facts’— and they’re almost all bulls**t Andrew Couts—Nov 30 at 2:09AM | Last updated Dec 1 at 3:21AM Screengrab via PBS NewsHour/Youtube (Fair Use) The fight over net neutrality rules has entered ‘fake news’ territory. On Dec. 14, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a proposal that could, if the critics are to be believed, change the internet forever. 001 https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fcc-net-neutrality-facts-fact-checked/ 1/14 12/14/2017 Fact-Checking FCC Chair Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality 'Facts' FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has put forward a proposal that would roll back rules protecting net neutrality, a founding principle of the internet that demands internet service providers (ISPs) treat all internet traffic equally. That means they can’t block content, throttle traffic from particular sources, or create “fast lanes” that speed up traffic for content providers that pay extra for the privilege. Until 2015, net neutrality was essentially optional. That changed when the FCC voted to reclassify broadband providers as “common carriers” under Title II of the Communications Act, which allowed the FCC to regulate ISPs’ practices and enforce net neutrality rules. If the new FCC proposal passes—and it’s all but certain it will—those rules will disappear, as will the Title II classification. Needless to say, fans of net neutrality are freaking out. Millions of people have commented on the proposal, demanding the FCC not pass its plan. (Millions of more comments were found to be fake.) A We The People petition calling for Pai to resign has already surpassed its 100,000-signature goal, which (theoretically) triggers a mandatory response from the White House. And internet freedom activists are planning a nationwide protest at Verizon stores across the United States on Dec. 7. In the face of intense opposition, which is fueled by a deep distrust of ISPs and concern for the future of the open internet, Pai this week released a list of “myths and facts” about net neutrality in an attempt to “set the record straight” on his proposal to gut net neutrality rules. The problem is, much of the “facts” he puts forth are either wildly misleading, missing key context, or simply speculation. To be fair, there’s rampant speculation among Pai’s critics as well. So, let’s take a look at each of Pai’s “myths” and “facts” and see where the truth really lies. 1) “The end of the internet as we know it.” MYTH: This is the end of the Internet as we know it. FACT: The Internet was free and open before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy- handed Title II Internet regulations, and it will be free and open after they are repealed. 002 https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fcc-net-neutrality-facts-fact-checked/ 2/14 12/14/2017 Fact-Checking FCC Chair Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality 'Facts' Fact-check: It’s true that the internet thrived to become what it is today without the 2015 Open Internet Order in place, but the FCC has been enforcing portions of net neutrality for more than a decade. Further, ISPs have long pushed back against any attempts to establish strong net neutrality rules—and they repeatedly violated net neutrality prior to the 2015 Open Internet Order going into effect. Furthermore, ISPs have already begun to test the rules and waver on their commitment to net neutrality principles. 2) Startups MYTH: Startups will not be able to compete without Title II regulations. FACT: Entrepreneurs starting new businesses online thrived long before Title II regulations, and they will continue to flourish with more opportunities to innovate once those regulations are repealed. Indeed, companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Twitter all started and experienced tremendous growth under the previous light-touch rules. Fact-check: Yes, the internet giants of today rose to prominence because ISPs (mostly) did not stifle them, even when the FCC lacked the current net neutrality rules. If the FCC explicitly eliminates those rules, however, it changes the environment in which ISPs are operating. That’s the worry consuming the startup community itself, and in April, more than 800 startups sent a letter to the FCC pleading with it to keep net neutrality rules in place. In short, the lack of net neutrality rules threatens startups because it gives ISPs greater power over them—even if they don’t use that power maliciously against potential competitors. 3) Censorship MYTH: Internet service providers will block you from visiting the websites you want to visit. FACT: Internet service providers didn’t block websites before the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed 2015 Internet regulations and won’t after they are repealed. Any Internet service provider would be required to publicly disclose this practice and would face fierce consumer backlash as well as scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission, which will have renewed authority to police unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices. 003 https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fcc-net-neutrality-facts-fact-checked/ 3/14 12/14/2017 Fact-Checking FCC Chair Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality 'Facts' Fact-check: First, let’s address the claim that ISPs “would be required to publicly disclose” any sites they block. This is technically true: The FCC’s Transparency Rules do require ISPs to provide accurate, detailed information about their service, which includes “network management”—jargon that encompasses blocking access to websites or online services or other types of censorship. But this public disclosure is buried in a sea of jargon and is not necessarily something any customer would know about. (Here’s Optimum’s disclosure page, for example.) Further, it doesn’t necessarily include a list of individual sites or services that are blocked on a particular ISP’s network. The primary issue here is that Pai’s replacement for net neutrality is potential consumer backlash in the face of censorship. That argument—while likely true—relies on customers (or journalists) to police ISPs in the absence of federal rules. It fails to address the fact that Pai’s FCC is putting the onus on customers by stripping away the federal protections that make such a patchwork system unnecessary. 4) Broadband investment MYTH: Investment has flourished under the current regulatory framework. FACT: Following the adoption of the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that’s happened outside of a recession in the Internet era. Fact-check: This one is really at the heart of the issue—and Pai’s argument appears to be entirely false. The main reason Pai wants to kill net neutrality rules is that, he claims, they are stifling the ISP industry and, therefore, limiting investment in building out and improving their networks. This is a claim the industry itself makes. However, data collected by Free Press, one of the leading pro-net neutrality non-profits, shows that investment across publicly traded ISPs has risen more than 5 percent, on average, in the two years since the net neutrality rules went into effect. In fact, Comcast increased investments by more than 26 percent. Not only that, but broadband speeds have increased since 2015, showing network improvements that benefit customers. On top of all that, some ISP executives themselves have admitted to investors that net neutrality rules did not negatively impact their investment decisions. 004 https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fcc-net-neutrality-facts-fact-checked/ 4/14 12/14/2017 Fact-Checking FCC Chair Ajit Pai's Net Neutrality 'Facts' All that said, some ISPs have reduced investment, with US Cellular’s business expenditures dropping by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. So, as Business Insider reports, Pai is cherry picking data as an excuse to lift rules that could allow ISPs to expand their businesses in ways they currently can’t, such as getting paid for “fast lanes.” 5) Internet packages MYTH: Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain online content. FACT: This didn’t happen before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations, and it won’t happen after they are repealed. Fact-check: This argument is entirely based on what happened before the net neutrality rules went into effect in 2015. As noted before, it is impossible to know whether ISPs will behave the same way they did in the past, which is why people are worried about eliminating the rules. Still, it does seem far-fetched that ISPs will try to go this route considering the hellfire of customer backlash they’ll face. But again, that is a less reliable system than having federal rules that prevent ISPs from going down that path in the first place. 6) Anti-competition MYTH: The current regulatory framework is good for competition. FACT: Title II regulations are bad for competition. They disproportionately burden the small Internet service providers and new entrants that are best positioned to introduce more competition into the broadband marketplace. Fact-check: Of the “facts” Pai has put forth so far, this one likely has the most validity to it. Back in April, a group of small ISPs signed a letter calling on the FCC to overturn net neutrality rules because the regulatory burden hurt their businesses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division
    Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 304 Filed 06/09/20 Entered 06/09/20 21:09:06 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 128 Steven J. Reisman (pro hac vice admission pending) Donald C. Schultz (VSB No. 30531) Marc B. Roitman (pro hac vice admission pending) W. Ryan Snow (VSB No. 47423) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, PLC 575 Madison Avenue 150 West Main Street, Suite 1500 New York, New York 10022 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Telephone: (212) 940-8800 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (212) 940-8776 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Geoffrey M. King (pro hac vice admission pending) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5200 Facsimile: (312) 902-1061 Proposed Co-Counsel to the Special Committee of the Board of Intelsat Envision Holdings LLC IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) INTELSAT S.A., et al.,1 ) Case No. 20-32299 (KLP) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) APPLICATION OF INTELSAT ENVISION HOLDINGS LLC FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP AS SPECIAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 327(e), 328(a), AND 1107(b) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 13, 2020 Intelsat Envision Holdings LLC (“Intelsat Envision” or the “Debtor”), one of the above- captioned debtors and debtors in possession (the “Debtors”), respectfully states as follows in support of this application (this “Application”):2 1 Due to the large number of Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a complete list of the Debtor entities and the last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 17-432 Before the Federal
    Federal Communications Commission DA 17-432 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Joint Application of Consolidated Communications ) WC Docket No. 16-417 Holdings, Inc., and FairPoint Communications, ) Inc., to Transfer Indirect Control of Authorization ) Holders to Consolidated Communications ) Holdings, Inc. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 8, 2017 Released: May 8, 2017 By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau; Acting Chief, International Bureau; and Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. (Consolidated Holdings) and FairPoint Communications, Inc. (FairPoint) (collectively, Applicants), filed a series of applications pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 seeking approval for various assignments and the transfer of control of licenses and authorizations held by FairPoint to Consolidated Holdings.2 We find that approval of the transaction will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity and hereby grant the Applications. In addition, we find that the Applicants have demonstrated good cause for receipt of their requested waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission’s rules.3 2. A public notice accepting the Applications for filing and establishing a pleading cycle for public comments was released on January 12, 2017.4 The Commission received no petitions to deny or comments in opposition to grant of the Applications. On March 22, 2017, after the public comment period closed, Applicants filed additional information to supplement the Applications.5 1 47 U.S.C. §§ 214, 310(d). 2 See Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and FairPoint Communications, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Pwc”) to Serve As Independent Auditor and Tax Compliance Services Provider for the Debtors, Effective As of February 18, 2020
    Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 796 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND Case No. 20-10343 (LSS) DELAWARE BSA, LLC,1 (Jointly Administered) Debtors. Hearing Date: July 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) Objection Deadline: June 19, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) DEBTORS’ APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND TAX COMPLIANCE SERVICES PROVIDER FOR THE DEBTORS AND DEBTORS IN POSSESSION, EFFECTIVE AS OF FEBRUARY 18, 2020 The Boy Scouts of America (the “BSA”) and Delaware BSA, LLC, the non-profit corporations that are debtors and debtors in possession in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (together, the “Debtors”), submit this application (this “Application”), pursuant to section 327(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), rules 2014(a) and 2016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), and rules 2014-1 and 2016-2 of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Local Rules”), for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Proposed Order”), (i) authorizing the Debtors to retain and employ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) to serve as independent auditor and tax compliance services provider for the Debtors, effective as of February 18, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Engagement Letters (as defined 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, together with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are as follows: Boy Scouts of America (6300) and Delaware BSA, LLC (4311).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission WASHINGTON, D.C
    BEFORE THE Federal Communications Commission WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Windstream Holdings, Inc., ) WC Docket No. 20-__ Debtor-in-Possession. ) Transferor ) ITC-T/C-2020____-_____ ) and ) ) Windstream Holdings, Inc., ) Transferee ) ) Application or Consent to Transfer of Control ) of Domestic and International Section 214 ) Authorizations to Emerge from Federal Bankruptcy Protection To: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Chief, International Bureau CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER OF CONTROL Windstream Holdings, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession (“Holdings” or “Transferor”) and Windstream Holdings, Inc. (“New Windstream” or “Transferee”) (together the “Applicants”) hereby seek, pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended (the “Act”), and Sections 63.04 and 63.24 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”), Commission approval for transfer of control of each of the subsidiaries of Holdings, identified below, that holds either a domestic or international Section 214 telecommunications license (collectively, “Windstream” or the “Windstream Companies”) for the purpose of emerging from federal bankruptcy protection. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES See Section I of Attachment 1, “Description of Proposed Transaction and Public Interest Statement.” - 2 - II. DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSACTION See Section I.E. of Attachment 1, “Description of Proposed Transaction and Public Interest Statement.” As described therein, the Applicants seek FCC permission to accomplish this transaction in two steps, allowing the Windstream Companies to emerge more quickly from bankruptcy protection at Step One, and deferring consideration of the proposed final ownership structure to Step Two. III. APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED TRANSFER OF CONTROL WILL PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST BENEFITS WITH NO COMPETITIVE OR OTHER HARMS See Section II of Attachment 1, “Description of Proposed Transaction and Public Interest Statement.” IV.
    [Show full text]
  • SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ______FORM 8-K ______
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 ______________ FORM 8-K ______________ Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 2, 2019 Charter Communications, Inc. CCO Holdings, LLC CCO Holdings Capital Corp. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 001-33664 84-1496755 001-37789 86-1067239 333-112593-01 20-0257904 (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) 400 Atlantic Street Stamford, Connecticut 06901 (Address of principal executive offices including zip code) (203) 905-7801 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Not Applicable (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: Written communications pursuant Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Class A Common Stock, $.001 Par Value CHTR NASDAQ Global Select Market Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Rating Component Scores North America Q4 2020
    Corporate Rating Component Scores North America Q4 2020 FALSE NA Corporate Rating Component Scores Oct. 31, 2020 Corporate Rating Component Scores North America Methodology," which is the criteria we use for rating corporate industrial companies and utilities. We list the scores for the 2308 public ratings in NA that are within the scope of our corporate methodology, accompanied by charts that show the distribution of aggregated scores. We believe that the list and charts enhance benchmarking across industries and rating levels for all market participants. We disclose these scores in line with the information we provide in our rating research publications, such as research updates and full analyses. By releasing all scores for public corporate ratings in NA, S&P Global Ratings confirms its commitment to deliver greater transparency and insight into the ratings process and simplify access for all market participants. Ratings are organized alphabetically by industry sector. The scores reflect the building blocks of the corporate ratings framework (see chart 1). Modifiers and components related to our group rating methodology or government-related entity methodology are indicated only where they have a positive or negative effect on the rating. The report reflects corporate credit ratings and scores as of Oct. 31, 2020. This document will not be updated for future rating actions or score revisions. To keep it concise, the list only discloses scores for the main rated entity of larger corporate groups. We omit certain entities such as subsidiaries or holding companies where the ratings are linked to those on their parent companies. In this report, we highlight changes since Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Report Dear Stockholders
    2020 ANNUAL REPORT DEAR STOCKHOLDERS, 2020 was a year like no other for Consolidated Communications. Searchlight’s investment enabled us to completely refinance our debt and We entered the year with strong momentum and a clear set of strategic extend our maturity profile by seven years. Importantly, this investment goals to guide our path and focus for the year: and partnership with an experienced strategic investor in our sector is • stabilize revenue and EBITDA while growing free cash flow enabling us to accelerate our fiber expansion plans immediately. • leverage our network across the regional territories we serve while • We are in a strong position to accelerate our fiber investments with continuing to invest in the expansion of our fiber network; and a fully funded build, supporting our growth initiatives across three customer groups; carrier, commercial and consumer. We have • continue to execute on our disciplined capital allocation plan, including a embarked on a five-year investment initiative to upgrade 1.6 million strategic refinancing, to position the Company for investment in the future. passings and enable multi-gigabit, symmetrical speeds over fiber services. And then the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, testing us in previously We have a proven track record of growing broadband, and we are now unimaginable ways. But your Company and its employees responded positioned to expedite our fiber expansion plans, boost customer speeds with incredible energy, engagement and support for one another. We and expand gigabit fiber services to 70 percent of our addressable market. focused immediately and intensely to ensure the safety of our employees As part of our fiber expansion plans, we intend to transform the customer and customers while at the same time ensuring business continuity and experience by making it easy for customers to do business with us.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry
    Report on the Status of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry A S O F D E C E M B E R 3 1, 2 0 1 9 Florida Public Service Commission Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter I. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................... 3 A. Federal Regulation ................................................................................................................ 3 B. Florida Regulation ................................................................................................................. 6 C. Status of Competition Report ................................................................................................ 8 Chapter II. Wireline Competition Overview ............................................................................... 11 A. Incumbent
    [Show full text]
  • ONN 6 Eng Codelist Only Webversion.Indd
    6-DEVICE UNIVERSAL REMOTE Model: 100020904 CODELIST Need help? We’re here for you every day 7 a.m. – 9 p.m. CST. Give us a call at 1-888-516-2630 Please visit the website “www.onn-support.com” to get more information. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CODELIST TV 3 STREAM 5 STB 5 AUDIO SOUNDBAR 21 BLURAY DVD 22 2 CODELIST TV TV EQD 2014, 2087, 2277 EQD Auria 2014, 2087, 2277 Acer 4143 ESA 1595, 1963 Admiral 3879 eTec 2397 Affinity 3717, 3870, 3577, Exorvision 3953 3716 Favi 3382 Aiwa 1362 Fisher 1362 Akai 1675 Fluid 2964 Akura 1687 Fujimaro 1687 AOC 3720, 2691, 1365, Funai 1595, 1864, 1394, 2014, 2087 1963 Apex Digital 2397, 4347, 4350 Furrion 3332, 4093 Ario 2397 Gateway 1755, 1756 Asus 3340 GE 1447 Asustek 3340 General Electric 1447 Atvio 3638, 3636, 3879 GFM 1886, 1963, 1864 Atyme 2746 GPX 3980, 3977 Audiosonic 1675 Haier 2309, 1749, 1748, Audiovox 1564, 1276, 1769, 3382, 1753, 3429, 2121 2293, 4398, 2214 Auria 4748, 2087, 2014, Hannspree 1348, 2786 2277 Hisense 3519, 4740, 4618, Avera 2397, 2049 2183, 5185, 1660, Avol 2735, 4367, 3382, 3382, 4398 3118, 1709 Hitachi 1643, 4398, 5102, Axen 1709 4455, 3382, 0679 Axess 3593 Hiteker 3118 BenQ 1756 HKPro 3879, 2434 Blu:sens 2735 Hyundai 4618 Bolva 2397 iLo 1463, 1394 Broksonic 1892 Insignia 2049, 1780, 4487, Calypso 4748 3227, 1564, 1641, Champion 1362 2184, 1892, 1423, Changhong 4629 1660, 1963, 1463 Coby 3627 iSymphony 3382, 3429, 3118, Commercial Solutions 1447 3094 Conia 1687 JVC 1774, 1601, 3393, Contex 4053, 4280 2321, 2271, 4107, Craig 3423 4398, 5182, 4105, Crosley 3115 4053, 1670, 1892, Curtis
    [Show full text]
  • 'Destination Television,' JD Power Finds Over-The-Top Streaming S
    Americans Love Streaming TV Services but Can’t Give Up ‘Destination Television,’ J.D. Power Finds Over-the-Top Streaming Services Gain in Customer Satisfaction, but Regularly Scheduled Program Viewing Continues to Rise COSTA MESA, Calif.: 28 Sept. 2017 — Pay-TV subscribers in the United States are growing increasingly satisfied with over-the-top streaming TV services vs. traditional cable TV, but they also are spending nearly an hour more a week watching regularly scheduled television programming than they did two years ago. That increasingly complex consumer relationship with streaming and cable television is explored in detail in a trio of J.D. Power studies released today. The related studies are the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Television Service Provider Satisfaction StudySM; the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Internet Service Provider Satisfaction StudySM; and the J.D. Power 2017 U.S. Residential Telephone Service Provider Satisfaction Study.SM “Although it seems like the world is consumed with idea of cord-cutting in the wake of Hulu’s first Emmy and the proliferation of new shows on Netflix and Amazon, the number of current pay-TV customers who plan to cut the cord has actually declined, and the number of hours spent watching old-fashioned, time-slot television is growing,” said Peter Cunningham, Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Practice Lead at J.D. Power. “We’re seeing a trend toward the co-existence of traditional and alternative service providers, with each offering some lessons to the other on how best to drive an increase in customer satisfaction.” Following are some of the key findings of the study: Streaming services make gains as traditional TV declines: Customer satisfaction with the overall streaming video service experience (7.91 on a 10-point scale) and performance and reliability (7.97) has slightly improved year over year.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly
    FOCUS Telecom Technology and Services Group U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly Winter 2017 Report Vol. 7, No. 1 In this Issue Strategic, Personal, Dedicated 2 Introduction and Sub Sector Definitions 3 U.S. Summary Comments: Public Markets Investment Banking and Advisory Services 4 Public Market Summary Charts 1-6 FOCUS Investment Banking LLC is a leading 5 U.S. Summary Comments: M&A investment bank with specialized telecom technology M&A Summary Charts 1-2 7 Announced Transactions with and services expertise, concentrating on providing Revenue Multiples highly tailored services to emerging middle market and 9 Sub Sector Analysis: Alternative larger organizations in this sector: Telecom Charts 1-6 10 Sub Sector Analysis: Alternative Mergers & Acquisition Advisory Telecom Charts 1-6 11 Sub Sector Analysis: Hosted and Corporate Development Consulting Managed Services Charts 1-6 Strategic Partnering & Alliances 12 Sub Sector Analysis: ILEC and Diversified ILEC Charts 1-6 Capital Financing, Debt & Equity 13 Sub Sector Analysis: Cable and Corporate Valuations Video Charts 1-6 14 FOCUS Telecom Technology and Services Team www.focusbankers.com/telecom Atlanta •Los Angeles •Washington, DC U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly By Richard Pierce, FOCUS Managing Director and Telecom Technology and Services Team Leader FOCUS believes that the need for communications ser- • Has a breadth of knowledge that covers most segments vices has never been greater. Large enterprises, small and of the telecom industry, medium sized businesses, and individuals have all come to rely upon ubiquitous access to voice, video, and data ser- • Has bankers with C-level operating experience in the vices to run their day-to-day activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Communications Inc., Et Al. V. National Union
    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., ) NYNEX LLC, VERIZON NEW ) ENGLAND INC., and VERIZON ) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ) LLC, ) C.A. No. N18C-08-086 EMD CCLD ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, XL ) SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) NATIONAL SPECIALITY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, U.S. SPECIALITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, AXIS ) INSURANCE COMPANY, and ST. ) PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: November 16, 2020 Decided: February 23, 2021 Upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defense Costs GRANTED Upon Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings DENIED Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, Carla M. Jones, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Robin L. Cohen, Esquire, Keith McKenna, Esquire, Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Verizon Communications, Inc., NYNEX, LLC, Verizon New England, Inc., and Verizon Technologies, LLC. Kurt M. Heyman, Esquire, Aaron M. Nelson, Esquire, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Lisa C. Solbakken, Esquire, Deana Davidian, Esquire, Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. Bruce E. Jameson, Esquire, John G. Day, Esquire, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Alexis J. Rogoski, Esquire, Tammy Yuen, Esquire, Skarzynski Marick & Black, LLC, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company. Robert J. Katzenstein, Esquire, Eve H. Ormerod, Esquire, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Michael P. Duffy, Esquire, Scarlett M. Rajbanshi, Esquire, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendant National Specialty Insurance Company. John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire, Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Joseph A.
    [Show full text]