DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 Before the Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 Before the Federal Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of ) Competition in the Market for the ) MB Docket No. 05-255 Delivery of Video Programming ) NOTICE OF INQUIRY Adopted: August 9, 2005 Released: August 12, 2005 Comment Date: September 19, 2005 Reply Comment Date: October 3, 2005 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1 II. MATTERS ON WHICH COMMENT IS REQUESTED ................................................ 4 A. Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming........................ 4 B. Cable Television Service.......................................................................................... 26 C. Direct-to-Home Satellite Services............................................................................ 43 D. Wireline Services...................................................................................................... 53 1. Local Exchange Carriers............................................................................. 53 2. Broadband Service Providers and Open Video System Operators............ 59 3. Electric and Gas Utilities ............................................................................ 60 E. Internet Video ........................................................................................................... 61 F. Broadcast Television Service ................................................................................... 64 G. Wireless Cable Systems............................................................................................ 77 H. Private Cable Operators............................................................................................ 78 I. Home Video Sales and Rentals ................................................................................ 80 J. Home Networking .................................................................................................... 81 K. Advanced Compression Techniques........................................................................ 83 L. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers ......................................................... 84 M. Foreign Markets........................................................................................................ 85 III. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, directs the Commission to report to Congress annually on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.1 This Notice of Inquiry (Notice) solicits data and information on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming for our twelfth annual report (2005 Report).2 We request information, comments, and analyses that will allow us to evaluate the status of competition in the video marketplace, changes in the market since the 2004 Report, prospects for new entrants to that market, factors that have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect these factors are having on consumers’ access to video programming.3 2. We ask commenters to provide data on video programming distributors, including cable systems, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, large home satellite or C-Band dish (C-Band) providers, broadband service providers (BSPs), private cable or satellite master antenna television (PCO) systems, open video systems (OVS), multichannel multipoint distribution or wireless cable systems (wireless cable), local exchange carrier (LEC) systems, utility-operated systems, and over-the-air broadcast television stations. We seek information on video programming distributed on videocassettes and DVDs through retail distribution outlets, over the Internet and via Internet Protocol (IP) networks. We also seek information that will allow us to evaluate horizontal concentration in the video marketplace, vertical integration between programming distributors and programming services, and other issues relating to the programming available to consumers. We request information on technical issues, including equipment and emerging services. We continue to seek comments regarding developments in foreign markets, as they may contribute to our understanding of domestic markets and provide insight into factors affecting video competition. Where possible and relevant, we request data as of June 30, 2005. 3. The accuracy and usefulness of the Report and its findings is directly related to the quality of the data and information we receive from commenters that respond to this Notice. We encourage thorough and substantive submissions from industry participants and state and local regulators with the best knowledge of the questions and issues raised. We will augment reported information with submissions in other Commission proceedings. In the past, we have had to rely on data from publicly available sources when information has not been provided directly by industry participants. The Commission intends to seek out publicly available information relevant to this inquiry. We are concerned, nevertheless, that such publicly available data may not be adequate to gain a full understanding of the state of competition in the video marketplace, especially when various sources provide inconsistent data. Thus, it is extremely important for us to receive complete and accurate information directly from industry sources. 1 Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), § 628(g), 47 U.S.C. § 548(g). 2 This Notice is not intended to express any Commission views, or to prejudice the outcome of any Commission proceeding, but only to elicit information and data for purpose of this Report to Congress. 3 Implementation of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming), 20 FCC Rcd 2755 (2005) (2004 Report). See also Reports, 1994-2002: 9 FCC Rcd 7442 (1994) (1994 Report); 11 FCC Rcd 2060 (1996) (1995 Report); 12 FCC Rcd 4358 (1997) (1996 Report); 13 FCC Rcd 1034 (1998) (1997 Report); 13 FCC Rcd 24284 (1998) (1998 Report); 15 FCC Rcd 978 (2000) (1999 Report); 16 FCC Rcd 6005 (2001) (2000 Report); 17 FCC Rcd 1244 (2002) (2001 Report); 17 FCC Rcd 26901 (2002) (2002 Report); 19 FCC Rcd 1606 (2004) (2003 Report). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 II. MATTERS ON WHICH COMMENT IS REQUESTED A. Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming 4. We seek a broad range of information and statistical data pertaining to video distribution technologies and the programming available to consumers. To elicit useful information for our assessment of the video marketplace, we raise a significant number of questions in this section. We ask commenters to address as many of these questions as possible. We reiterate the importance of receiving this information directly from industry participants for an accurate and complete report. 5. General Statistical Data: We seek information and statistical data for each type of multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), including: • the number of homes passed by each wired technology; • the number of homes capable of receiving service via each wireless technology;4 • the number of subscribers and penetration rates for each service (e.g., basic cable service, cable programming service tier or "CPST," premium, or their equivalents provided by non- cable MVPDs, pay-per-view, video-on-demand (VOD)); • channel capacities and the number, type, and identity of video programming channels offered, the channel capacity required for such offerings, and the available channel capacity of the system; • prices charged for various programming packages; • cost of programming inputs; • industry and individual firm financial information, such as total revenue and revenue by individual company segments or services, cash flow, and expenditures; • information on how video programming distributors compare in terms of relative size and financial resources; • data that measure the audience reach of video programming distribution firms as well as relative control over the video distribution market; • information on video distributor expansion into new markets such as local telephony and high-speed-Internet access, the percentage of subscribers taking these services, and the competitive advantages of offering these services; and • information on new technologies being considered, tested, or deployed by MVPDs for video, voice and data. 6. Head-to-Head Competition: Most consumers can receive video programming from broadcast television stations over the air, one cable provider, at least two DBS providers, and, in limited cases, a wireline overbuilder or other delivery technology. We are interested in data and information on the number of homes capable of choosing among multichannel video program distribution (MVPD) 4 This includes the number of line-of-sight homes for distribution technologies that require line of sight for reception. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-155 services. How many households can receive service from one or more providers (e.g., DBS, wireless cable, PCO) as well as an incumbent cable provider?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FCC-06-11A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-11 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition ) MB Docket No. 05-255 in the Market for the Delivery of Video ) Programming ) TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT Adopted: February 10, 2006 Released: March 3, 2006 Comment Date: April 3, 2006 Reply Comment Date: April 18, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and Tate issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Scope of this Report......................................................................................................................... 2 B. Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 4 1. The Current State of Competition: 2005 ................................................................................... 4 2. General Findings ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Specific Findings....................................................................................................................... 8 II. COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING ......... 27 A. Cable Television Service ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Television Broadcasters'adoption of Digital
    TELEVISION BROADCASTERS’ ADOPTION OF DIGITAL MULTICAST AND ANCILLARY SERVICES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRIMARY CORE, SUPPORTING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS By TODD ANDREW HOLMES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1 © 2008 Todd Andrew Holmes 2 To all who have inspired my intellectual curiosity and academic pursuits, and to all who have supported me in reaching this milestone 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Ostroff, for the enormous amount of time and guidance he gave to me in helping me to complete this research study. His support and direction were absolutely critical in the successful completion of this paper. I also would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Chan-Olmsted and Dr. Brown, for their thoughts and ideas concerning my research topic. Second, I would like to thank the nine television executives who took time out of their busy schedules to meet with me and who very openly and willingly shared with me their thoughts on the research topic. Their help was absolutely vital to the completion of this study. Third, I would like to thank my parents who continued to keep me moving along on the thesis through their inquiries and encouragement. Their own academic achievements have continued to inspire me throughout this process. Lastly, special thanks go to all my friends, the Gator Guzzlers and many others, who heard me talk about this thesis for months and with whom I had to skip out on a lot of activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration of Terri Stevens in Support of First Day Motions
    Case 21-10457-BLS Doc 4 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 MOBITV, INC., et al. Case No. 21-10457 (___) Debtors.1 Joint Administration Requested DECLARATION OF TERRI STEVENS IN SUPPORT OF FIRST DAY MOTIONS I, Terri Stevens, hereby declare that the following is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief: 1. I am the Chief Financial Officer of MobiTV, Inc. (“MobiTV”) and its debtor affiliate MobiTV Service Corporation (“Services Corp.” and together with MobiTV, the “Debtors” or the “Company”). I have been employed by the Debtors since 2005. Before joining the Company, I was the controller at RagingWire Enterprise Solutions; Vice President, Controller, and Interim Chief Financial Officer at Excite@Home; Vice President of Finance at Xenote, Inc.; Director of Finance and Controller at PointCast; and a Senior Associate at Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers). 2. I am familiar with the Debtors’ books and records, day-to-day operations, business, and financial condition. I am also familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the First Day Motions (defined below) and the commencement of these chapter 11 cases. 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases and the last four digits of each Debtor’s U.S. tax identification number are as follows: MobiTV, Inc. (2422) and MobiTV Service Corporation (8357). The Debtors’ mailing address is 1900 Powell Street, 9th Floor, Emeryville, CA 94608. DOCS_NY:42429.8 Case 21-10457-BLS Doc 4 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 33 3.
    [Show full text]
  • User Guide | Guide De L'utilisateur | Guía Del Usuario
    User Guide | Guide de l’utilisateur | Guía del Usuario LCD TV | Téléviseur ACL | Televisor con pantalla LCD NS-LCD37 Important safeguards Insignia NS-LCD37 Electrical energy can perform many useful functions, but it can also cause personal injuries and property damage if improperly handled. This LCD TV television has been engineered and manufactured with the highest priority on safety. But improper use can result in potential electrical Contents shock or fire hazard. In order to prevent potential danger, please observe the following instructions Introduction . .1 when installing, operating, and cleaning the Safety information . .1 television. To ensure your safety and prolong the Features. .3 service life of your television, read the following Setting up your television. .6 precautions carefully before using the product. Using your television . .10 1 Read these instructions—All operating Maintaining. .20 instructions must be read and understood Troubleshooting . .21 before the product is operated. Specifications. .22 Programming the remote control . .22 2 Keep these instructions—These safety and Legal notices . .28 operating instructions must be kept in a safe Warranty. .31 place for future reference. Français. 32 3 Heed all warnings—All warnings on the Español . 64 product and in the instructions must be observed closely. 4 Follow all instructions—All operating Introduction instructions must be followed. Congratulations on your purchase of a 5 Do not use this television near water—for high-quality Insignia product. Your NS-LCD37 example, near a bathtub, washbowl, kitchen represents the state of the art in television sink, or laundry tub, in a wet basement, or design, and is designed for reliable and near a swimming pool.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
    Case 21-10457-LSS Doc 237 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Chapter 11 In re: Case No. 21-10457 (LSS) MOBITV, INC., et al., Jointly Administered Debtors.1 Related Docket Nos. 73 and 164 NOTICE OF FILING OF SUCCESSFUL BIDDER ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 7, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered the Order (A) Approving Bidding Procedures for the Sale of Substantially All Assets of the Debtors; (B) Approving Procedures for the Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases; (C) Scheduling the Auction and Sale Hearing; and (D) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 164] (the “Bidding Procedures Order”).2 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to the Bidding Procedures Order, the Debtors conducted an auction on May 11-12, 2021 for substantially all of the Debtors’ assets (the “Assets”). At the conclusion of the auction, the Debtors, in consultation with their advisors and the Consultation Parties, selected the bid submitted by TiVo Corporation (the “Successful Bidder”) as the Successful Bid. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, on May 12, 2021, the Debtors filed the Notice of Auction Results [Docket No. 234] with the Bankruptcy Court. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Asset Purchase Agreement dated May 12, 2021 (the “Successful Bidder APA”) between the Debtors and the Successful Bidder. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • When Mobile TV Meets the Internet and Social Networking by Marie-Jo
    The Future of Mobile TV: When Mobile TV meets the Internet and Social Networking By Marie-José Montpetit, Natalie Klym, and Emmanuel Blain 1 Introduction Over the last few years, online video services and telco IPTV have rocked the traditional model of television. As content delivery moves to an all-IP platform, connecting old and new providers to a growing array of increasingly personal and multi-purpose devices over fixed and mobile networks, the TV experience has become extremely versatile. Mobile TV is not immune to these upheavals, and is itself a disruptive force. In fact, it will soon make little sense to think of mobile TV as distinct from TV in general. Rather, it will be an integral part of an increasingly rich TV experience. This chapter provides a vision for the future of mobile TV as it evolves from standalone to integrated service. This shift will be examined in context of the more general transformation of television, with a focus on the recent integration of social networking. Our vision will thus build towards community-based approaches that harness the power of individuals, from their technologies to their behaviors. We begin by redefining mobile TV, and then give a brief overview of the key trends related to the television infrastructure and industry landscape. From there, we outline the mobile TV ecosystem of content, connections, and devices in more detail, and then demonstrate the growing importance of service features in this new environment, particularly in terms of integrating mobile and social TV. We would like to point out up front that many of the scenarios described in the paper are fraught with issues related to usability, technical difficulties, business models, and/or legalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Attendee Demographics
    DEMOGRAPHICS 20REPORT 19 2020 Conferences: April 18–22, 2020 Exhibits: April 19–22 Show Floor Now Open Sunday! 2019 Conferences: April 6–11, 2019 Exhibits: April 8–11 Las Vegas Convention Center, Las Vegas, Nevada USA NABShow.com ATTENDANCE HIGHLIGHTS OVERVIEW 27% 63,331 Exhibitors BUYERS 4% Other 24,896 91,921 TOTAL EXHIBITORS 69% TOTAL NAB SHOW REGISTRANTS Buyers Includes BEA registrations 24,086 INTERNATIONAL NAB SHOW REGISTRANTS from 160+ COUNTRIES 1,635* 963,411* 1,361 EXHIBITING NET SQ. FT. PRESS COMPANIES 89,503 m2 *Includes unique companies on the Exhibit Floor and those in Attractions, Pavilions, Meeting Rooms and Suites. 2019 NAB SHOW DEMOGRAPHICS REPORT PRIMARY BUSINESS Total Buyer Audience and Data Total Buyers: 63,331 ADVERTISING/PUBLIC RELATIONS/MARKETING 6% AUDIO PRODUCTION/POST-PRODUCTION SERVICE 21% BROADERCASTING/CARRIER 19% Cable/MSO Satellite (Radio or Television) Internet/Social Media Telco (Wireline/Wireless) Radio (Broadcast) Television (Broadcast) CONTENT/CHANNEL 8% Film/TV Studio Podcasting Independent Filmmaker Gaming Programming Network Photography DIGITAL MEDIA 4% DISTRIBUTOR/DEALER/RESELLER 4% EDUCATION 3% FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATION 1% FINANCIAL 1% HEALTHCARE/MEDICAL .4% SPORTS: TEAM/LEAGUE/VENUE 1% GOVERNMENT/NON-PROFIT 1% MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER (HARDWARE) 3% PERFORMING ARTS/MUSIC/LIVE ENTERTAINMENT 1% RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1% SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 3% VIDEO PRODUCTION/POST-PRODUCTION 8% Video Production Services/Facility Video Post-Production Services/Facility WEB SERVICES/SOFTWARE MANUFACTURER 8% OTHER 7% 2019 NAB
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-13 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter Of
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-13 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition ) MB Docket No. 04-227 in the Market for the Delivery of Video ) Programming ) ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT Adopted: January 14, 2005 Released: February 4, 2005 By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a statement; Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing a joint statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................1 A. Scope of this Report..................................................................................................................2 B. Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................................4 1. The Current State of Competition: 2004 ...................................................................4 2 General Findings .........................................................................................................7 II. COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING......16 A. Cable Television Service.......................................................................................................16 1. General Performance.................................................................................................17 2. Capital Acquisition and Disposition.........................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C
    Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. CHAIRMAN November 18,2004 The Honorable Joe Barton Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives 21 25 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205 15 Dear Chairman Barton: In response to your May 18,2004 request, I am pleased to provide the Committee on Energy and Commerce the enclosed Report concerning the packaging and sale of video programming services by cable and satellite television providers. The Report was prepared by the Commission’s Media Bureau. To assist in the preparation of the Report, the Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking public comment and information on the technical, economic and legal issues identified in your request. The Bureau also conducted a symposium last summer to explore first-hand the advantages and disadvantages of an a la carte marketing scheme, including its potential implications for the prevalent economic model in the pay television industry, as well as its possible effects on retail prices and new entrants in the video programming market. The specific questions outlined in your letter are addressed in Appendix F to the Report. If you or other Committee members have any questions concerning the Media Bureau’s Report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, *&Michael K. Powell Enclosure THEREPORT < > Report On the Packaging and Sale of Video Programming Services To the Public November 18,2004 THEREPORT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 3 IT . THE RETAIL MARKET FOR VIDEO PROGRAMMING .................................................... 8 A. Background .............................................................................................................................. 8 B . Historical Overview ................................................................................................................. 8 C . Current Cable Services and Program Options..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy 04/20 If More Space Is Needed, Attach a Separate Sheet to This Form
    Case 21-10458 Doc 1 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 16 Fill in this information to identify your case: United States Bankruptcy Court for the: DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case number (if known) Chapter 11 Check if this an amended filing Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy 04/20 If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write the debtor's name and the case number (if known). For more information, a separate document, Instructions for Bankruptcy Forms for Non-Individuals, is available. 1. Debtor's name MobiTV Service Corporation 2. All other names debtor used in the last 8 years Include any assumed None names, trade names and doing business as names 3. Debtor's federal Employer Identification 46-1168357 Number (EIN) 4. Debtor's address Principal place of business Mailing address, if different from principal place of business . 1900 Powell St., Emeryville, CA 94608 Number, Street, City, State & ZIP Code P.O. Box, Number, Street, City, State & ZIP Code Alameda Location of principal assets, if different from principal County place of business Number, Street, City, State & ZIP Code 5. Debtor's website (URL) www.mobitv.com 6. Type of debtor Corporation (including Limited Liability Company (LLC) and Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)) Partnership (excluding LLP) Other. Specify: Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 1 Case 21-10458 Doc 1 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 16 Debtor MobiTV Service Corporation Case number (if known) Name 7.
    [Show full text]
  • ATSC 8VSB Over-The-Air HDTV SMPTE
    ATSC 8VSB Over-the-Air SMPTE - SF HDTV • Meetings are at various venues – June meeting was at ILM IEEE June 27, 2006 – Majority of meetings are on the Peninsula Roy Trumbull – Broadcast Engineer – [email protected] • SF website: members.aol.com/SMPTEsf Retired assistant chief engineer KRON-TV – Anyone can sign up to our listserver for notification of posted meetings. Diagrams courtesy of www.atsc.org, www.opencable.com, www.zenith.com , www.motorola.com, www.terayon.com, • National website: www.smpte.org www.trivenidigital.com Information on the Web www.atsc.org (Advanced Television Systems Committee) 8VSB Seminars click: News & Information or Standards click: Papers • 1 Day Seminars There are numerous downloadable pdf files at this site including: • Conducted by Gary Sgrignoli formerly with “Status of Digital Cable Interoperability” – outlines Zenith. problems and lists many reference documents • For information: www.MSWdtv.com www.opencable.com (a Cablelabs site) • [email protected] click: Documents click: “Open Cable Overview” and PDF file 1 Stations on Air Note Adjacent Channels Nationwide 1566 Stations are broadcasting DTV DTV Adj. DTV Adj. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Stations KTVU 56 57 (DTV) KICU 52 51 (DTV) KRON 57 56 (DTV) KCNS 39 38 (NTSC) NTSC DTV NTSC DTV KPIX 29 30 (DTV) KBHK 45 44 (NTSC) KTVU 2 56 KICU 36 52 KGO 24 25 (both) KSTS 49 48 (NTSC) KRON 4 57 KCNS 38 39 KQED 30 29 (DTV) KKPX 41 42 (NTSC) KPIX 5 29 KBHK 44 45 KNTV 12 11 (NTSC) KTLN 47 48 (NTSC) KGO 7 24 KSTS 48 49 KDTV 51 50 (NTSC) KQED 9 30 KKPX 65 41 KBWB 19 20 (NTSC) KNTV 11 12 KTLN 68 47 KTSF 27 26 (NTSC) KDTV 14 51 KBWB 20 19 KTSF 26 27 NTSC Ch 48 has DTV adj.
    [Show full text]
  • URGENT! PLEASE DELIVER TO: Published by Access Intelligence, LLC, Tel: 301-354-2101
    URGENT! PLEASE DELIVER TO: www.cablefax.com, Published by Access Intelligence, LLC, Tel: 301-354-2101 4 Pages Today Wednesday — March 7, 2007 Volume 18 / No. 045 Ready to Make Nice? Roberts, Smith Predict Retrans Resolution It looks like Comcast may not have to pull out those antennas after all. Speaking at the Bear Stearns media confer- ence, both Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Sinclair CEO David Smith expressed optimism they could forge a retrans pact before the Mar 10 deadline. Sinclair’s guidance of $48mln in retrans rev for ‘07 includes expected remuneration from Comcast, Smith said, because the company always felt—and still does—that the 2 will be able to hammer out a deal. Roberts said Comcast is “very close” to announcing a retrans deal but didn’t name the broadcaster involved. He also poked fun at published reports putting the 2 sides far apart. “I’ve chuckled that perhaps there are other business motivations in talking about negotiations,” he said. Roberts isn’t chortling about his unwillingness to cave to broadcasters’ demands, which he said would likely lead to charging subs for free channels. “We’re not interested and will not pay cash for retransmission [consent],” said Roberts. “That line is drawn. That is not changing.” Comcast’s top dog envisions some mix of cash and joint marketing initiatives, or some other mutually beneficial concoction, in future deals. Some 4mln Com- cast subs in 23 markets could lose Sinclair stations if the 2 can’t reach accord by this weekend’s deadline. Bear Stearns Notebook: Brian Roberts responded Tues to some investment firms’ grumbling about Comcast’s greater-than-expected ’07 capex guidance, calling the expected outlays “success-based capital.” He said the outlay will spur further rev growth through continued triple-play sub expansion and create an important pipeline into the lucrative SME market, which is expected to yield $2.5bln in rev within 5 years.
    [Show full text]