DOCSLIB.ORG

Cable Television Community Needs and Interests Ascertainment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cable Television Community Needs and Interests Ascertainment REPORT ON CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED NEEDS AND INTERESTS ASCERTAINMENT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND By CBG Communications, Inc. Thomas G. Robinson, President Dick Nielsen, Senior Engineer and Constance Ledoux Book, Ph. D. Telecommunications Research Corporation and Carson Hamlin Media Integration Specialist March 13, 2017 Title CBG Communications, Inc. Frederick County Prepared: March 13, 2017 Needs Assessment Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 SECTION A REVIEW OF CABLE-RELATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS .................................................................................................................................. 7 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS ASCERTAINMENT.............. 8 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 WRITTEN SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 9 DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 TELEVISION SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 10 NON-SUBSCRIBERS OF COMCAST CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE ............................................................................................ 11 COMCAST CABLE TELEVISION SUBSCRIBERS IN FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND .................................................................... 11 CABLE SERVICE FEATURES ......................................................................................................................................... 14 CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 15 OUTAGES AND TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES....................................................................................................................... 16 SERVICE AND INSTALLATION ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 17 COMMUNICATION ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................... 18 PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS PROGRAMMING ......................................................................... 19 OTHER LOCAL PROGRAMMING INTERESTS .................................................................................................................... 21 DISTRIBUTION FEATURES FOR LOCAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING ........................................................................................... 22 ONLINE ACCESS IN FREDERICK COUNTY ........................................................................................................................ 23 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 25 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 26 ONLINE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE-RELATED SURVEY .......................... 31 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 ONLINE SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 31 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................... 31 COMMUNITY OF RESIDENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 31 NON-SUBSCRIBERS TO COMCAST CABLE SERVICE ........................................................................................................... 32 SUBSCRIBERS TO COMCAST CABLE SERVICE ................................................................................................................... 32 OVERALL SATISFACTION ........................................................................................................................................... 32 SERVICE FEATURES .................................................................................................................................................. 33 CALLS TO COMCAST ................................................................................................................................................ 33 CABLE OUTAGES..................................................................................................................................................... 33 PICTURE QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................... 33 INSTALLATION/SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Table of Contents i CBG Communications, Inc. Frederick County Prepared: March 13, 2017 Needs Assessment Report COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 34 PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS PROGRAMMING (PEG) ......................................................................... 34 Government Access .................................................................................................................................. 34 Public K-12 Educational Access ............................................................................................................... 34 Higher Educational Access ....................................................................................................................... 34 LOCAL COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING .......................................................................................................................... 35 LOCAL PROGRAMMING ACCESS FEATURES .................................................................................................................... 35 INTERNET SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................. 35 FINAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 36 ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 36 PUBLIC MEETING AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS................. 37 PUBLIC MEETING .................................................................................................................................................... 37 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 37 SECTION B REVIEW OF CABLE-RELATED PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) ACCESS NEEDS AND INTERESTS ........................................................................... 38 PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT 39 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 39 FINDINGS – GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS ........................................................................... 41 OVERVIEW OF FREDERICK COUNTY’S GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS CHANNEL - FCG TV, CHANNEL 19 ............................................ 41 INTERVIEWS AND FOCUSED DISCUSSION WITH FCG TV REPRESENTATIVES ........................................................................... 42 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 44 EQUIPMENT BASELINE DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 44 VIRTUAL SET TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 45 ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 46 FCG TV GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS ............ 46 PRODUCTION STUDIOS/STUDIO CONTROL .................................................................................................................... 46 STUDIO ................................................................................................................................................................ 46 STUDIO CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................... 47 FREDERICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT MEETING ROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS CONTROL ......................................................... 47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Results 2017
    RESULTS 2017 Results 2017 Films, television programs, production, distribution, exhibition, exports, video, new media May 2018 Results 2017 1. ELECTRONICS AND HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON FILM, VIDEO, TV AND VIDEO GAMES .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. CINEMA ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1. Attendance at movie theaters ............................................................................................ 13 2.2. Distribution ........................................................................................................................ 36 2.3. Movie theater audiences .................................................................................................... 51 2.4. Exhibition ........................................................................................................................... 64 2.5. Feature film production ...................................................................................................... 74 3. TELEVISION ............................................................................................................................ 91 3.1. The television audience ..................................................................................................... 92 3.2. Films on television ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • INSTITUTION Congress of the US, Washington, DC. House Committee
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 303 136 IR 013 589 TITLE Commercialization of Children's Television. Hearings on H.R. 3288, H.R. 3966, and H.R. 4125: Bills To Require the FCC To Reinstate Restrictions on Advertising during Children's Television, To Enforce the Obligation of Broadcasters To Meet the Educational Needs of the Child Audience, and for Other Purposes, before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress (September 15, 1987 and March 17, 1988). INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. PUB DATE 88 NOTE 354p.; Serial No. 100-93. Portions contain small print. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) -- Viewpoints (120) -- Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PC15 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Advertising; *Childrens Television; *Commercial Television; *Federal Legislation; Hearings; Policy Formation; *Programing (Broadcast); *Television Commercials; Television Research; Toys IDENTIFIERS Congress 100th; Federal Communications Commission ABSTRACT This report provides transcripts of two hearings held 6 months apart before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives on three bills which would require the Federal Communications Commission to reinstate restrictions on advertising on children's television programs. The texts of the bills under consideration, H.R. 3288, H.R. 3966, and H.R. 4125 are also provided. Testimony and statements were presented by:(1) Representative Terry L. Bruce of Illinois; (2) Peggy Charren, Action for Children's Television; (3) Robert Chase, National Education Association; (4) John Claster, Claster Television; (5) William Dietz, Tufts New England Medical Center; (6) Wallace Jorgenson, National Association of Broadcasters; (7) Dale L.
    [Show full text]
  • Ascertainment of Community Needs by Public Television Stations: a Study of Kpbs, Wosu, Wviz, Weta, and the Alabama Educational Television Commission
    72-4421 BENNETT, Sandra Williams, 1942- ASCERTAINMENT OF COMMUNITY NEEDS BY PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS: A STUDY OF KPBS, WOSU, WVIZ, WETA, AND THE ALABAMA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Mass Communications University Microfilms, A XEROK Company. Ann Arbor, Michigan <§> Copyright by Sandra Williams Bennett 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED ASCERTAINMENT OF COMMUNITY NEEDS BY PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS: A STUDY OF KPBS, WOSU, WVIZ, WETA, AND THE ALABAMA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sandra Williams Bennett, B.S. in Ed., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Department of Speech Communications PLEASE NOTE: Some papes have small and indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful completion of this study was to­ tally dependent upon cooperation, encouragement, assis­ tance, time and devotion--of others. For their coopera­ tion in freely and openly talking with me, I thank the men and women at each of the stations I visited. For their encouragement and assistance, I thank my graduate professors, and especially my committee members and ad­ viser. A special note of thanks for their continued en­ couragement and assistance throughout my graduate studies goes to Dr. Robert Hilliard and Allen Myers at the Federal Communications Commission. And especially to my husband Dick, and son, Richard Daniel, who cooperated, encouraged, assisted, gave of their time, but most especially remained devoted— I thank you. Sandra Jean Williams Bennett ii VITA May 27, 194 2 .....
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of Pay Television in the United States: Let an Unshackled Marketplace Decide
    3058-185-01Grimes-4pass-r04.3d Pages: [1–48] Date: [February 26, 2014] Time: [18:20] The Distribution of Pay Television in the United States: Let an Unshackled Marketplace Decide By Warren S. Grimes* Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................... 2 I. The Distribution of Pay Television in the United States ...... 3 A. The History of Forced Bundling Restraints ..................... 3 B. A Pricing Model Skewed to Capture Consumer Surplus...... 7 C. Impact on Distributors and Independent Programmers...................................................................... 11 D. The U.S. and Canadian Systems Compared..................... 13 E. Anticompetitive Effects of Forced Bundling Reassessed ......................................................................... 14 F. Why Programmers Continue to Require Bundling.......... 21 G. Efficiency Defenses for Programmer-Forced Bundles..... 23 II. The Brantley Litigation........................................................... 25 A. The Complaint................................................................... 25 B. The Legal Pedigree for the Brantley Complaint.............. 27 C. The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion............................................. 29 III. Evaluating the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion.................................. 29 A. Criticism............................................................................. 29 B. Support for the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion .......................... 31 1. Errors Based on a Misapprehension
    [Show full text]
  • Cpage Paper 5 Marae Sept 30
    2002 - 5 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Media Ownership Working Group Program Diversity and the Program Selection Process on Broadcast Network Television By Mara Einstein September 2002 Executive Summary: This paper examines the extent to which program diversity has changed over time on prime time, broadcast network television. This issue is assessed using several different measurement techniques and concludes that while program diversity on prime time broadcast network television has fluctuated over time, it is not significantly different today than it was in 1966. The paper also explores the factors used by broadcast networks in recent years in program selection. It finds that networks’ program selection incentives have changed in recent years as networks were permitted to take ownership interests in programming. 2 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRAM DIVERSITY Mara Einstein Department of Media Studies Queens College City University of New York The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Communications Commission, any Commissioners, or other staff. 3 Introduction This paper analyzes the correlation between the FCC’s imposition of financial interest and syndication rules and program diversity on prime time broadcast network television. To demonstrate this, diversity will be examined in terms of 1) content diversity (types of programming) and 2) marketplace diversity (suppliers of programming). This analysis suggests that the structural regulation represented by the FCC’s financial interest and syndication rules have not been an effective means of achieving content diversity. Study Methodology By evaluating the content of programming over the periods surrounding the introduction and elimination of the financial interest and syndication rules, we will measure the trend in program diversity during the time when the financial interest and syndication (“fin-syn”) rules were in effect.
    [Show full text]
  • LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K (Mark One) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File No.: 1-14880 LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) British Columbia, Canada N/A (State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Identification No.) 1055 West Hastings Street, Suite 2200 2700 Colorado Avenue, Suite 200 Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 2E9 Santa Monica, California 90404 (877) 848-3866 (310) 449-9200 (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (877) 848-3866 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered Common Shares, without par value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None ___________________________________________________________ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATED and PRODUCED by TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS: the STORY of UNDERDOG, TENNESSEE TUXEDO and the REST Online
    6Dm7y [Download free ebook] CREATED AND PRODUCED BY TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS: THE STORY OF UNDERDOG, TENNESSEE TUXEDO AND THE REST Online [6Dm7y.ebook] CREATED AND PRODUCED BY TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS: THE STORY OF UNDERDOG, TENNESSEE TUXEDO AND THE REST Pdf Free Mark Arnold ebooks | Download PDF | *ePub | DOC | audiobook Download Now Free Download Here Download eBook #1115713 in eBooks 2014-08-03 2014-08-03File Name: B00MEN8T2C | File size: 48.Mb Mark Arnold : CREATED AND PRODUCED BY TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS: THE STORY OF UNDERDOG, TENNESSEE TUXEDO AND THE REST before purchasing it in order to gage whether or not it would be worth my time, and all praised CREATED AND PRODUCED BY TOTAL TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS: THE STORY OF UNDERDOG, TENNESSEE TUXEDO AND THE REST: 24 of 24 people found the following review helpful. Enjoyable and informative tribute to the cartoons Jay Ward didn't create (but you always thought he did)By Bradley DavisA few years ago Keith Scott published his excellent and authoritative book on all things Jay Ward, The Moose That Roared: The Story of Jay Ward, Bill Scott, a Flying Squirrel, and a Talking Moose, all about the history of Jay Ward's animation studio and the cartoons he produced for sponsor General Mills for television in the 60s, particularly Rocky and Bullwinkle and Dudley Do-Right, etc. Over the years various syndication packages of Jay Ward's creations have been mixed and mingled with another batch of cartoons that he did not create, though many have believed that he did. These include the ever popular Underdog and Tennessee Tuxedo cartoons, as well as the The King and Odie, Go Go Gophers, Commander McBragg and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Films and Licensing & Merchandising
    Vol.Vol. 33 IssueIssue 88 NovemberNovember 1998 1998 Feature Films and Licensing & Merchandising A Bug’s Life John Lasseter’s Animated Life Iron Giant Innovations The Fox and the Hound Italy’s Lanterna Magica Pro-Social Programming Plus: MIPCOM, Ottawa and Cartoon Forum TABLE OF CONTENTS NOVEMBER 1998 VOL.3 NO.8 Table of Contents November 1998 Vol. 3, No. 8 4 Editor’s Notebook Disney, Disney, Disney... 5 Letters: [email protected] 7 Dig This! Millions of Disney Videos! Feature Films 9 Toon Story: John Lasseter’s Animated Life Just how does one become an animation pioneer? Mike Lyons profiles the man of the hour, John Las- seter, on the eve of Pixar’s Toy Story follow-up, A Bug’s Life. 12 Disney’s The Fox and The Hound:The Coming of the Next Generation Tom Sito discusses the turmoil at Disney Feature Animation around the time The Fox and the Hound was made, marking the transition between the Old Men of the Classic Era and the newcomers of today’s ani- 1998 mation industry. 16 Lanterna Magica:The Story of a Seagull and a Studio Who Learnt To Fly Helming the Italian animation Renaissance, Lanterna Magica and director Enzo D’Alò are putting the fin- ishing touches on their next feature film, Lucky and Zorba. Chiara Magri takes us there. 20 Director and After Effects: Storyboarding Innovations on The Iron Giant Brad Bird, director of Warner Bros. Feature Animation’s The Iron Giant, discusses the latest in storyboard- ing techniques and how he applied them to the film.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Tv Worth?
    WHAT’S TV WORTH? APRIL 2016 1 13 3 We surveyed 1,502 TV consumers… • Age 16 to 74* • Watch at least 5 hours of TV per week • Have broadband at home • U.S. census balanced • Data collection completed in March 2016 • Prior to 2015, the age range for this study was 16-64. On slides with trending to 2014 or 11 earlier, the data is for viewers age 16-64 The New Normal: the average viewer combines multiple TV sources to make their own TV package ELECTRONIC SELL THROUGH SVOD ONLINE CHANNEL OR MCN SCREENS MVPD AND CONNECTORS Live VOD DVR TV Everywhere 2 “What’s TV Worth” tracks how consumers choose, use, and allocate their time across these options Which TV platforms consumers are using, USAGE independently and together The screens viewers watch on, and the devices DEVICES they use to connect their TVs to the internet Which sources viewers see as their “default” – the DEFAULT first thing they turn on when they want to watch Which TV platforms, and which specific brands, VALUE do consumers perceive to be most valuable Which features and attributes drive viewers to use CHOICE certain TV sources over others 3 Executive Summary Overview of Key Findings 4 Is 2016 the year the dust begins to settle? 5 SVOD is emerging as the dominant model for consuming TV Rising Usage High Perceived Value More users are adopting SVOD Perceptions of major SVOD platforms platforms, and many are using more continue to rise, while pay TV is flat than one % RATE “GOOD” use at least one SVOD, OR “EXCELLENT” VALUE 68% up from 47% in 2015 67% Ç Netflix streaming subscribe
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 the COMMON SENSE CENSUS: MEDIA USE by KIDS AGE ZERO to EIGHT Credits
    2020 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: MEDIA USE BY KIDS AGE ZERO TO EIGHT Credits Authors: Victoria Rideout, M.A., VJR Consulting Michael B. Robb, Ph.D., Common Sense Media Data analysis: Melissa Saphir, Ph.D., Saphir Research Copy editor: Jennifer Robb Designers: Allison Rudd and Dana K. Herrick Suggested citation: Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, 2020. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. 1 Key.Findings .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 Methodology. 9 Key.Tables. .13 Overall.Screen.Use. .17 Television,.Streaming,.and.Online.Videos. .21 Mobile.Media. 25 Digital.Divide. 27 Reading . 29 Gaming.and.Social.Media. .31 Children.Under.2. 33 Emerging.Technologies:.Virtual.Reality,.Smart.Speakers,.. and.Smartwatches. 37 Parents’.Views.About.Children's.Media. 39 Parent.Quotes . 43 Conclusion. 49 Appendix:.2020.Questionnaire . .51 COMMON SENSE IS GRATEFUL FOR THE GENEROUS SUPPORT AND UNDERWRITING THAT FUNDED THIS RESEARCH REPORT: Eva and Bill Price Bezos Family Foundation Margaret and Will Hearst Carnegie Corporation of New York A LETTER FROM OUR FOUNDER The Common Sense Census launched in 2011 with our first-ever look at the media habits of kids from birth to 8 years old. The goal of the census has been to act as a benchmark, and track media use over time to understand the incredible and far-reaching presence that devices and media have in the lives of our youngest population. This report is our fourth Zero to Eight study, and it comes amidst the most unprecedented of times. This year, all of our data was collected before the start of the coronavirus pandemic—before the lockdowns, the office closures, and the remote schooling that led to stress, uncertainty, and a general loosening of screen time rules in households across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Television Production I
    TELEVISION PRODUCTION I Program Overview: The TV Production classes at Grosse Pointe North and South High Schools provide a studio setting for those students with a serious interest in pursuing a career in communications. The studio is equipped with up to date equipment, enabling students to become familiar with all aspects of broadcasting and the ability to create programs of community-wide interest. Course Description: Television Production I introduces students to the fundamental, technical, and creative aspects of television production, operation of equipment, camera and sound techniques, basic scriptwriting, graphics, and a variety of programming possibilities. Through reading, watching, and analyzing film and television programs students will gain a critical awareness and knowledge of the television medium. Students will learn to write scripts through a series of steps designed to yield a shooting script that is production oriented and appropriate for a project, either assigned or created by the student. Students will collaborate to effectively communicate their message. They will function as a team to set program goals, creatively produce a TV product by applying their knowledge of current TV technology. This course is designed with a focus on studio production which creates the foundation for future participation on GPTV News. It will provide students with opportunities to experience the total television production process. Further, it is important for students to learn by doing, inquiring, and discovering. Course Requirements: The text, other materials given, and the television laboratory equipment will provide the major structure for this course. Students will be evaluated on the following: 1. Completion of assigned worksheets 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 16-510 Before the Federal
    Federal Communications Commission DA 16-510 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in ) MB Docket No. 15-158 the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming ) SEVENTEENTH REPORT Adopted: May 6, 2016 Released: May 6, 2016 By the Chief, Media Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 13 A. Scope of the Report........................................................................................................................ 13 B. Analytic Framework ...................................................................................................................... 14 C. Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 15 III. PROVIDERS OF DELIVERED VIDEO PROGRAMMING.............................................................. 16 A. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors ............................................................................ 16 1. MVPD Providers ..................................................................................................................... 16 a. Regulatory Conditions Affecting Competition................................................................
    [Show full text]