DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Notice Federal Communications Commi8iion 33755 1818 M Street N.W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Notice Federal Communications Commi8iion 33755 1818 M Street N.W r '1(lrVI=TI, "" r:! ~ . e:c:py_.' . ORIGINAL PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMI8IION 33755 1818 M STREET N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20564 News mecIa information 202/832·6060. Recorded .stlng of reeases Sld texts 202/63~02. ("-, .., /f'~..... I-' /'-0) h.; . REPORT NO. 1950 June-----29, 1993 PEITrIOOS Em REXXR)I:DFlY\T!Gl OF ACTlOOS IN RULE MAKIN.? PRCXEEDIN:; Petitions for reconsideration and clarification, have been filed in the Commission rule making proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429 (e) . The full text of these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or may be purchased from the Corrrnission's copy contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed within 15 days of the date of public notice of the petitions in the Federal Register. See section 1.4 (b) (1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4 (b) (1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. SUBJECT: Implementation of sections of the cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 -- Rate Regulation. (MM Docket No. 92-266) FIlED BY: Bruce D. Collins, Attorney for National cable Satellite Corporation, d/b/a C-SPAN on 6/2/93. James H. Johnston, Attorney for Atlanta Interfaith Broadcasters, Inc. on 6/8/93. Roy A. Sheppard, Attorney for Cable Services on 6/18/93. William Leventer, Attorney for Video Data Systems on 6/21/93. Ronald A. Siegel and Roy R. Russo, Attorneys for Wometco Cable Corp., Georgia Cable 1V and Corrrrnunications, Susquehanna Cable Co., Verto Corporation and Barden cablevision of Inkster Limited Partnership on 6/21/93. John W. Pestle, Attorney for Michigan C-TEC Communities on 6/21/93. Richard E. Wiley and Philip V. Permut, Attorneys for Viacom International Inc. on 6/21/93. J. Roger Wollenberg, William R. Richardson, Jr., and Christopher M. Heimann, Attorneys for Valuevision International, Inc. on 6/21/93. Bruce D. Sokler and Lisa W. Schoenthaler, Attorneys for Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. on 6/21/93. Philip L. Verveer and Sue D. Blumenfeld, Attorneys for Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. on 6/21/93. Sue D. Blumenfeld, Attorney for Tele-Communications, Inc. on 6/21/93. J. Bruce Irving, Attorney for SUR Corporation on 6/21/93. Jerry Parker, Attorney for Superstar Connection on 6/21/93. Judith L. Neustadter, Attorney for Paradise Television Network, Inc. on 6/21/93. Janes A. Penney, Attorney for Northland Conmunications Corporation on 6/21/93. Olarles S. Walsh and seth A. Davidson, Attorneys for Newhouse Broadcasting Corporation on 6/21/93. Daniel L. Brenner and Michael S. Schooler, Attorneys for the National cable Television Association, Inc. on 6/21/93. Norman M. Sinel and Patrick J. Grant, Attorneys for the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National l£ague of Cities, united States Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties on 6/21/93. Robert 'weisberg, Attorney for Mountain cablevision, Inc. on 6/21/93. Paul J. Berman and Alane C. weixel, Attorneys for Longview cable Television Co., Inc. and Kilgore cable Television Co. on 6/21/93. Robert L. Hoegle and Timothy J. Fitzgibbon, Attorneys for Liberty Media Corporation on 6/21/93. Nicholas P. Miller and Joseph Van Eaton, Attorneys for King County, Washington; Austin, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; Gillette, Wyoming; MontgOIrery County, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; and Wadsworth, Ohio on 6/21/93. Stephen R. Ross, Attorney for InteI:M3dia Partners on 6/21/93. Peter Tannenwald and Kathleen L. Franco, Attorneys for Inland Bay cable TV Associates on 6/21/93. Eric E. Breisach, Attorney for Higgins Lake cable, Inc. on 6/21/93. Donna C. Gregg, Attorney for E! Entertainment Television, Inc. on 6/21/93. Diane S. Killory, Attorney for The Disney Qlannel on 6/21/93. Richard E. Wiley and Lawrence W. Secrest, III, Attorneys for Discovery Communications, Inc. on 6/21/93. Richard E. Wiley and Peter D. Ross, Attorneys for COrning Incorporated and Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. on 6/21/93. Paul Glist and Janes F. Ireland, Attorneys for Continental cablevision, Inc. on 6/21/93. Henry A. Solomon and William J. Byrnes, Attorneys for the Community Broadcasters Association on 6/21/93. Stephen R. Effros and Robert J. Ungar, Attorneys for the Conrnunity Antenna Television Association, Inc. on 6/21/93. John I. David, Attorney for Colony Communications, Inc., Consolidated cablevision of california, L.P., Consolidated cablevision of Michigan, L.P., King Videocable Company, MultiVision cable TV Corp., Parcable, Inc., and Sarnnons Communications, Inc. on 6/21/93. 2 Gardner F. Gillespie and Jacqueline P. Cleary, Attorneys for ACI Management, Inc.; Balkin cable; Buford Television, Inc.; Classic cable; Community Communications Co.; Douglas Corrmunications Corp. II; Fanch Corrmunications, Inc.; Frederick cablevision, Inc.; Galaxy cablevision; Hannon Communications Corp.; Horizon cablevision, Inc.; Leonard Communications, Inc.; MidAmerican cablesystems, Limited Partnership; MidContinent Media, Inc.; Mission cable Corrpany, L.P .; MW1 cablesystems, Inc.; Phoenix cable, Inc.; Rigel Communications, Inc.; Schurz Communications, Inc.; Star cable Associates; Triax Communications Co.; USA cablesystems, Inc.; Vantage cable Associates; and Western cabled Systems ("Small System Operators") on 6/21/93. Lex J. Smith, Attorney for Century Communications, Inc. on 6/21/93. Sharon L. Webber and Angela J. Carrpbell, Attorneys for Center for Media Education, the Association of Independent Video and Filmnakers, the National Association of Artists' Organizations, and the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture on 6/21/93. Frank W. Lloyd, Attorney for the California cable Television Association on 6/21/93. Howard J. Symons and Leslie B. Calandro, Attorneys for cablevision Systems Corporation on 6/21/93. Brenda L. Fox, Attorney for Booth American Corrpany, cablevision Industries Corp., COx cable Communications, First Carolina COrrmunications, Inc., Jones Intercable, Inc., Marcus Cable Corrpany, L.P ., Mid-Coast Cable Television, Inc., Service Electric Cablevision, Inc., Sonic Corrmunications, Southwest Missouri cable TV, Inc., Sunmit Corrmunications Group, Inc., US cable Corporation, and Vista Communications, Inc. on 6/21/93. Donna C. Gregg and Michael Baker, Attorneys for Blade Corrmunications, Inc. on 6/21/93. Michael E. Glover, Attorney for the Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies on 6/21/93. Maurita K. Coley and David M. Silvennan, Attorneys for Black Entertainment Television, Inc. on 6/21/93. Aaron I. Fleischman and Stuart F. Feldstein, Attorneys for Arizona Cable Television Association; Falcon Cable TV; Mid-American cable Television Association; Mt. Vernon Cablevision; Nashoba Communications Limited Partnership; Pennsylvania cable Television Association; Prestige cable TV; Star Cable Associates; Tele-Media Corporation; weststar Coomunications, Inc; and Whitcom Investment Company on 6/21/93. Illegible Signature, Attorney for Alaska Cablevision, Inc. on 6/21/93. David B. Gluck and Mark R. Boyes, Attorneys for Affiliated Regional Communications, Ltd. on 6/21/93. 3 Ron D. Katznelson, Attorney for M.1ltichannel camn.mication sciences, Inc. on 6/22/93. James E. ~yers, Attorney for Encore Media COq>. on 6/21/93. Mark J. Palchick, Attorney for TKR cable caepany and TKR cable of Kentucky on 6/21/93. Mark J. Palchick, Attorney for Fairmont cable, Massillon cable TV, Inc., Avenue TV cable services, Inc., cablevision of Texas, Pegasus capital Management, Range TV cable Co., Inc. and St .. Joseph cablevision, Inc. on 6/21/93. Gardner F. Gillespie, Attorney for Harron camn.mications COq>. on 6/21/93. Brenda L. Fox and Peter H. Feinberg, Attorneys forCancast cable carmunications, Inc. on 6/21/93. Trudi M:.Collum Foushee, Attorney for Crown Media, Inc. on 6/21/93. Matthew L. Leibowitz and Joseph A. Belisle, Attorneys for Video' Jukebox Network, Inc. on 6/21/93. - FCC - 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download the 54Th Annual Program Book
    THE 54TH ANNUAL DECEMBER 4, 2020 1 Welcome To The We celebrate Fifty-Fourth Annual Cable TV Pioneers and appreciate Induction Celebration everything you are, and all that you do. Class of 2020 Induction Gala Charter Field Operations In Appreciation of C-SPAN would like to congratulate Ann Our Sponsors on joining the esteemed ranks How It All Began Officers and Managing Board of the Cable TV Pioneers The Spirit of the Pioneers who have shaped the Presenting the Class of 2020 Cable TV industry. Congratulations to the 25th Anniversary Class of 1995 In Memorium Active Membership 2020 Celebration Executive Committee David Fellows Yvette Kanouff Patricia Kehoe Michael Pandzik Sean McGrail Your leadership Susan Bitter Smith and forward thinking Jim Faircloth personifi es what it means to be a Cable TV Pioneer. 2 3 We’re Going Special Thanks Primetime Thanks To Our Sponsors To Thank you to our friends at C-SPAN for televising and streaming the induction ceremony for the Class of 2020. C-SPAN was created by the cable industry in 1979 as a gift to the American people and today with their stellar reputation, they are more relevant than ever. Unique to media as a non-profit, C-SPAN is a true public service of the cable and satellite providers that fund it. It’s thanks to the support of so many Cable TV Pioneers that C-SPAN has thrived. Many have served on C-SPAN’s board of directors, while others committed to add the services to their channel line-ups. So many local cable folks have welcomed C-SPAN into their markets to meet with the community and work with educators and local officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Effects of Subsidized Broadband Internet for Low-Income Americans
    Online Appendix: Wired and Hired: Employment Effects of Subsidized Broadband Internet for Low-Income Americans George W. Zuo Appendix A: Appendix Tables and Figures Figure A1: Major Comcast Cable M&A Events: 1990-2018 1994 • Comcast acquires Canadian based Maclean Hunter’s U.S. cable operation based in New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida, adding 550,000 subscribers 1995 • Comcast acquires E.W. Scripps cable systems based in California, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Florida, and Kentucky, adding 800,000 subscribers 1998 • Comcast acquires Jones Intercable, Inc in the Mid-Atlantic adding 1 million subscribers 1998 • Comcast acquires Prime Communications in Maryland, Virginia, adding 430,000 subscribers 1999 • Comcast acquires Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc in Philadelphia, adding 79,000 subscribers 1999 • Comcast and AT&T enter agreement to exchange cable communications systems, gaining cable communications systems serving 1.5 million subscribers 2000 • Comcast acquires Lenfest Communications in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey adding 1.3 millions subscribers 2000 • Comcast completes cable swaps with Adelphia and AT&T broadband, gaining customers in Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. 2001 • Comcast acquires select AT&T Broadband cable systems in New Mexico, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Tennessee adding 585,000 subscribers 2001 • Comcast acquires AT&T Broadband cable systems in Baltimore adding 112,000 subscribers 2001 • Comcast and A&T Broadband merge forming
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Commission (Region A) Broadband Assessment
    Southwestern Commission (Region A) Broadband Assessment Prepared by ECC Technologies, Inc. February 2018 Southwestern Commission Broadband Assessment Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... pg. 4 1.1 Broadband Assessment Overview and Methodology .......................................... pg. 4 1.2 Results of Broadband Assessment ...................................................................... pg. 6 1.3 Next Steps – Further Analysis and Incorporation ................................................ pg. 7 2. Regional County Data ................................................................................. pg. 9 2.1 Residential Survey Questions and Responses ..................................................... pg. 9 2.2 Commercial Survey Questions and Responses .................................................. pg. 18 2.3 Respondent Map ............................................................................................. pg. 23 2.4 Speed Test Results ........................................................................................... pg. 23 3. Cherokee County Data .............................................................................. pg. 25 3.1 Residential Responses ...................................................................................... pg. 25 3.2 Commercial Responses .................................................................................... pg. 32 3.3 Provider Reported Availability vs. Speed
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 23, Number 26, June 21
    Selected works in new English translations. The writings of Friedrich Schiller, the great 19th-century poet, playwright, historian and philosopher, have inspired patriots and world citizens for 200 years. VOLUME I VOLUME II VOLUME III Don Carlos, Infante of Spain Wilhelm Tell The Virgin of Orleans Letters on Don Carlos What Is, and To What End Do Philosophical Letters Theater Considered as a Moral We Study Universal History? On the Pathetic Institution The Legislation of Ly curgus and On the Sublime Solon On the Aesthetical Education of On Naive and Sentimental Poetry Man On Grace and Dignity Poetry and Ballads The Ghost Seer Poetry, including The Song of the $15.00 Poetry and Epigrams Bell $9.95 $15.00 '" SPECIAL OFFER: Buy the three-volume set for only $34.50. Make check or mon�y order payable to: Shipping and handling: Add $4 for the first book and $.50 for each additional book in the order. Ben Franklin Booksellers Virginia residents add 4.5% sales tax. 107 South King St. Leesburg, Va. 22075 1-800-453-4108 or 1-703-777-3661 We accept Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Discover. Founder and Contributing Editor: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Editorial Board: Melvin Klenetsky, Antony From theAssociate Editor Papen, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, Edward Spannaus, Nancy Spannaus, Jeffrey Steinberg, Webster Tarpley, Carol White, Christopher White Senior Editor: Nora Hamerman If any among our readers think that Lyndon LaRouche's campaign Associate Editor: Susan Welsh Managing Editors: John Sigerson, is "pretty much over," with the end of the primary season, they don't Ronald Kokinda know Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Cancon in the Age of New Media
    MA MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER PROMOTING CANCON IN THE AGE OF NEW MEDIA CHRIS MEJASKI Dr. David Skinner The Major Research Paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Joint Graduate Program in Communication & Culture Ryerson University - York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 25,2011 2 Canadian broadcasting policy has long pursued the belief that content produced by and for Canadians holds cultural value for its domestic audiences, in addition to economic significance for Canada's media industries. As the capabilities of wireless and mobile technologies have developed to allow consumption of content traditionally broadcast on television, stakeholders have questioned how to ensure culturally-rich, domestically-produced content is available for Canadian audiences by such means. As industry stakeholders have debated the potential value of Canadian content in an increasingly globalized media landscape, technologies have continued to advance, and Canadians have increasingly turned to new media to be infonned and entertained. With a lengthy history of media regulation, this paper will demonstrate how the Canadian government's slow, uncoordinated response to developing new media policy effectively perpetuates inhibiting tensions between cultural and economic goals. Questions that frame this enquiry include: What role does Canadian content playas a reflection of Canadian culture and support of the production industry within Canada's traditional broadcasting system? Is regulation of new media important to maintain traditional policy goals? If so, what kinds of regulation might be implemented in this new context? And to what degree does current new media policy succeed in pursuing cultural and industrial goals historically common to Canadian media regulation? In pursuing these questions, this paper will draw conclusions regarding the benefits of federal new media policy, and how the government can better advance domestic digital media production, as technologies continue to evolve.
    [Show full text]
  • New Copyright Act & Cable Television: a Signal of Change
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1977 New Copyright Act & Cable Television: A Signal of Change Michael Botein New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation 24 Bull. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 1 (1976-1977) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. Botein. Copyright and Cable Television PART I ARTICLES 1. THE NEW COPYRIGHT ACT AND CABLE TELEVISION-A SIGNAL OF CHANGE By MICHAEL BOTEIN* Cable television has existed for more than a generation, but only now has the cable copyright issue reached a final and legislative reso­ lution. 1 There are at least several reasons for the delay in defining the cable-copyright interface. First, until the last decade, cable-or "com­ munity antenna television" (CA TV)-was a literally low-visibility medium; it merely relayed four or five otherwise unavailable broad­ cast television signals to a few hundred thousand subscribers in otherwise unserved or "white" areas, and had no program origination capability.2 Second, when cable eventually did become an issue, the only available forum was the Federal Communications Commission. Reasonably enough, the Commission then viewed, and to a- great ex­ tent still views, cable mainly in terms of its potential impact on broad­ cast television's advertising revenues, rather than in terms of compen­ sation to copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JEFFREY T. PARSONS, MATTHEW ) BALKMAN, GARY DAVID BIESHEIM, ) No. 62152-1-I NEYSA BLACKWELL, THOMAS P. ) CARMODY, KARREN and DANIEL ) DIVISION ONE CAWLFIELD, SCOTT and JULIE ) FOWLER, ROMAN G. GILLULY, ) PUBLISHED OPINION GEORGE GILLULY, JOHN G. and ) SUSAN B. HANSEN, JOHN A. and ) JOYCELYN A. KEEFE, ROBERT E. ) KELLUM, EDWARD MAY, ALLISON S. ) MAY, MARK V. MARTINEZ, TYLER P. ) MICKEY, FARID and SOHEILA ) MOHARJERJASBI, THOMAS C. ) MULLINS, JANE and JEFFREY ) PINNEO, RYAN SCHARNHORST, ) MELODY SCHERTING, SHERI M. ) SLEETH, DEBORAH SMITH, ) DOUGLAS and AMANDA STROMBOM, ) DIANE ZULAS and all others similarly ) situated, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) COMCAST of California/Colorado/ ) Washington I, Inc.; COMCAST of ) Washington IV, Inc.; and JOHN DOES ) FILED: June 8, 2009 I-XV, ) Respondents. ) GROSSE, J.—Subject to a few narrow exceptions, the Cable Act expressly preempts state or local action that amounts to rate regulation of basic cable television services, such is the purview of the Federal Communications No. 62152-1-I / 2 Commission (FCC) and local franchising authorities alone. Individual subscribers or groups may only challenge the rates charged to them by a cable service provider before the FCC or before the local franchising authority. Because the plaintiffs here sought relief that necessarily required rate regulation, conduct explicitly proscribed by the Cable Act, summary dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims under CR 12(b)(6) was proper. We affirm. FACTS The plaintiffs (collectively Parsons) are Comcast cable television subscribers living in King County’s Greenwood Point and South Cove (annexation area). Following a popular vote, the city of Issaquah annexed those areas effective March 2, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • J.R Beaudrie
    J.R. BEAUDRIE Categories: People, Lawyers Gerald (J.R.) Beaudrie is a well-respected lawyer with expertise in all aspects of business law, and a practice focused on mergers and acquisitions and private equity. J.R. represents clients in a range of industries including technology, and the marketing and advertising sector. Providing guidance and assistance on general corporate commercial matters as well as transactions, J.R. advises on business structuring and organization, restructurings and reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate finance, including private placements and credit facilities. He also works with his clients on the preparation and negotiation of contracts, agreements and corporate documents. With deep experience acting for professional service firms, clients trust J.R.’s thorough understanding of business law and his ability to navigate the complex laws and regulations that affect their companies and partnerships. Email: [email protected] Expertise: Business Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Marketing & Advertising, Private Equity & Venture Capital, Technology Location: Toronto Phone: 416.307.4229 Position/Title: Partner, Business Law | Mergers & Acquisitions Education & Admissions: Degree: Called to the Ontario bar Year: 2006 ______ Degree: LLB University: University of Windsor Year: 2005 McMillan LLP | Vancouver | Calgary | Toronto | Ottawa | Montreal | Hong Kong | mcmillan.ca University: University of Detroit Mercy Year: 2005 ______ Degree: B.Comm. (Honours) University: University of Windsor Year: 2002
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Il Quadro Economico E Regolamentare
    Il sistema globale delle comunicazioni 1. IL QUADRO ECONOMICO E REGOLAMENTARE Lo sviluppo della tecnologia digitale sta ridisegnando i confini tra i di- versi servizi di telecomunicazione, le trasmissioni radiotelevisive ed i servizi informatici on line. Tradizionalmente, infatti, tali servizi erano forniti attraverso reti e piattaforme differenti; oggi, invece, la tecnolo- gia digitale è in grado di fornire una codificazione comune e una mag- giore capacità di banda così da poter veicolare più servizi di comuni- cazione sulle stesse reti. Paradigma del veloce progredire di tale fe- nomeno di convergenza è il rapido sviluppo di Internet, Rete delle re- ti oramai in grado di fornire una varietà completa di servizi di comu- nicazione, compresa la telefonia vocale e la televisione. La conver- genza dei servizi, stimolata dal progresso tecnologico, ed i conse- guenti cambiamenti nelle strutture del mercato costituiscono il punto di partenza ma anche la sfida per le attività di regolamentazione del- le comunicazioni. Innanzitutto il quadro giuridico-regolamentare si presenta ancora frammentato. In Europa, ma anche negli Stati Uniti, le norme relative alla televisione, alle telecomunicazioni e ad Internet sono diverse. Anche i principi ispiratori sono differenti. La televisione (in Europa) viene per lo più regolamentata per assicurare il pluralismo politico e sociale. Le telecomunicazioni rispondono a imperativi di carattere economico-concorrenziale. Internet presenta maggiore flessibilità ma con il rischio che una liberalità derivante dal carattere innovativo del mezzo presti il fianco ad abusi o a sviluppi non uniformi nei vari pae- si. Inoltre, nella maggior parte dei paesi, le istituzioni responsabili della regolamentazione nel settore della radiotelevisione e delle tele- comunicazioni sono distinte l’una dall’altra.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1 AT&T-Mediaone Merger Results of MHHI Analysis With
    Table 1 AT&T-MediaOne Merger Results of MHHI Analysis with Respect to the Supply of Video Programming Services Pre-Merger MHHI Post-Merger MHHI Delta MHHI1 Silent Interest2 Post-Merger, MediaOne's interest in Time Warner Entertainment becomes silent Case 1: Liberty is a separate entity from AT&T 1934 1981 48 Case 2: Liberty is owned and controlled by AT&T 1940 2045 104 Proportional Control 3 Post-Merger, MediaOne's interest confers proportional control of Time Warner Entertainment Case 3: Liberty is a separate entity from AT&T 1934 1937 4 Case 4: Liberty is owned and controlled by AT&T 1940 2059 118 Notes: 1May not equal the difference of the pre-merger and post-merger MHHls due to rounding. 2All other control interests are proportional to ownership interests except in the following cases: Liberty's 9% interest in Time Warner and 8% interest in News Corp. are silent and AT&rs 33% interest in Cablevision is silent. 3AII ownership interests confer proportional control except the cases noted in footnote 2. 58 Table 2 AT&T-MediaOne Merger Results of MHHI Analysis 1 with Respect to the Purchase of Video Programming Services Pre-Merger MHHI Post-Merger MHHI Delta MHHI2 Silent Interest3 Post-Merger, MediaOne's interest in Time Warner Entertainment becomes silent Case 1: Liberty is a separate entity from AT&T 1051 1304 254 Case 2: Liberty is owned and controlled by AT&T 1069 1328 258 Proportional Control4 Post-Merger, MediaOne's interest confers proportional control of Time Warner Entertainment Case 3: Liberty is a separate entity from AT&T 1051 1432 381 Case 4: Liberty is owned and controlled by AT&T 1069 1452 383 Notes: 'AT&T sells 735,000 subscribers to Comcast post-merger.
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 Board Summary Action Archive
    Board Summary Action Archive | Board of Supervisors | Placer County, CA Board Summary Action Archive 1998 ● December 15, 1998 ● June 29, 1998 ● December 7, 1998 ● June 16, 1998 ● December 1, 1998 ● June 15, 1998 ● November 16, 1998 ● June 2, 1998 ● November 3, 1998 ● May 19, 1998 ● November 2, 1998 ● May12, 1998 ● October 26, 1998 ● May 11, 1998 ● October 20, 1998 ● April 21, 1998 ● October 19, 1998 ● April 20, 1998 ● October 6, 1998 ● April 7, 1998 ● September 15, 1998 ● March 24, 1998 ● September 14, 1998 ● March 23, 1998 ● September 1, 1998 ● March 17, 1998 ● August 25, 1998 ● March 10, 1998 ● August 11, 1998 ● February 24, 1998 ● July 28, 1998 ● February 10, 1998 ● July 14, 1998 ● January 20, 1998 ● June 30, 1998 ● January 6, 1998 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mmccorma.PLACERCO...0Documents/bos/sumarchv/sumarchv_revMast1998_060106.htm6/2/2006 1:14:23 PM Board Summary Action, December 15, 1998 -- Placer County, Calif. Board Summary Action, December 15, 1998 Board of Supervisors' Chambers 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 FLAG SALUTE - Lead by Supervisor Williams. STATEMENT OF MEETING PROCEDURES - Read by Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT: None given. CONSENT AGENDA: Moved #14 for separate action. Consent Agenda approved as amended and with action as indicated. MOTION Bloomfield/Weygandt VOTE: 4:0 (White absent). 1. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - Approved August 11 & 25, 1998. 2. CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY - Rejected the following claim: a. 98-152, Farmers (Hamblin), $3,042.56 (Claim for property damage). 3.ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: a. Information Technology - Approved an increase to blanket purchase order 6302 with Infosol, Inc., in the amount of $95,000, to retrofit the existing payroll system to Year 2000 standards and extend the agreement to June 30, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Perserving the Public Interest: a Topical Analysis of Cable/DBS
    PRESERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST: A TOPIcAL ANALYSIS OF CABLEJDBS CROSSOWNERSHIP IN THE RULEMAKING FOR THE DIRECT BROADCAST SATELLITE SERVICE Stephen F. Varholy In the early 1980's the direct broadcast satellite Dish Network4 becoming ubiquitous, DBS's fu- service ("DBS") I was envisioned both as a revolu- ture is assured. It has made one of the most suc- 5 tion for the nation's television screens and as a cessful debuts in consumer electronic history, technical curiosity that would forever supplement with industry analysts touting that in the short pe- cable television in areas where cable could not riod between the service's inauguration in 1994 to reach.2 Today, with names such as DirecTV3 and present,6 DBS has acquired over 9 million sub- I DBS is a non-broadcast video service in which satellites that DBS would remedy the lack of commercial television in beam television signals back to earth using high-powered rural areas. One witness before Congress disputed this asser- transponders (transmitters) that allow the use of small size tion, testifying that DBS reception would be problematic and satellite receiving antennas (dishes). See DANIEL L. BRENNER, that it would serve a non-existent consumer demand for en- MONROE E. PRICE AND MICHAEL I. MEVERSON, 2 CABLE TELEVI- tertainment sources (citing that video cassettes and discs, SION AND OTHER NONBROADCAST VIDEO § 15.01 (April 1998) among other media, would more easily satisfy this demand). [hereinafter Nonbroadcast Video]; c.f, Satellite Communications/ See Satellite Communications/Direct Broadcast Satellites Hearing Direct Broadcast Satellites Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Before the Subcomm.
    [Show full text]