DOCSLIB.ORG

MVPD DMA Level Digital Subscriber Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MVPD DMA Level Digital Subscriber Data June 2015 Featured in this report: 1 Methodology 2 MVPD Subscriber Totals (210 DMAs) 3 System Level Subcriber Breakdown (210 DMAs) © One Touch Intelligence, LLC, 2004-2015. All rights reserved. Methodology The data in this report was developed from filings at the U.S. Copyright Office and from our own internal estimates. All wireline multichannel video program distributors are required to file basic subscriber information for the systems they own at the U.S. Copyright Office every six months. The cable and telco subscriber numbers in this report are based on figures reported for the period ending Dec. 31, 2014, and include all systems with at least 1,000 subscribers. OTI applied the digital subscriber penetration figures for the top six public cable MSOs and AT&T and Verizon to each company's basic subscriber counts to arrive at digital subscriber counts for their systems. Industry averages were used for all other cable systems. All systems were then aligned with their designated market areas (DMAs). By using the national MVPD penetration figure, OTI estimated the number of DBS subscribers in each DMA to arrive at the final digital subscriber counts in each market. DMA DMA Rank Basic Digital subs DirecTV subs Abilene-Sweetwater Total 165 26,372 20,306 29,037 Albany, GA Total 151 44,230 27,758 30,494 Albany-Schenectady-Troy Total 58 365,477 308,301 79,942 Albuquerque-Santa Fe Total 47 182,104 165,581 136,008 Alexandria, LA Total 179 30,722 25,670 23,398 Alpena Total 209 9,256 9,163 3,550 Amarillo Total 130 66,293 47,861 42,311 Anchorage Total 146 65,381 39,229 3,418 Atlanta Total 9 1,257,190 1,228,803 496,172 Augusta Total 112 111,585 97,895 46,677 Austin Total 40 339,938 301,264 107,849 Bakersfield Total 127 97,732 87,161 40,010 Baltimore Total 27 752,743 731,526 144,960 Bangor Total 156 56,137 46,162 46,610 Baton Rouge Total 93 209,056 176,700 48,967 Beaumont-Port Arthur Total 140 60,301 49,931 32,833 Bend, OR Total 193 40,258 24,155 9,200 Billings Total 168 47,399 28,886 25,215 Biloxi-Gulfport Total 160 71,244 36,596 22,333 Binghamton Total 159 66,051 54,751 24,786 Birmingham-Anniston Total 44 340,118 312,260 160,408 Bluefield-Beckley Total 158 50,384 40,600 32,202 Boise Total 110 43,358 17,583 71,464 Boston Total 7 1,901,331 1,846,745 246,995 Bowling Green Total 182 53,696 32,469 8,927 Buffalo Total 52 384,313 331,650 123,110 Burlington-Plattsburgh Total 98 144,106 140,119 80,420 Butte-Bozeman Total 188 19,368 11,621 17,485 Casper-Riverton Total 197 26,053 15,632 11,253 Cedar Rapids-Wtrlo-Iwc-Dub Total 90 125,244 75,544 65,875 Champaign-Springfld-Decatur Total 84 171,388 147,180 70,975 Charleston, SC Total 95 144,849 133,958 61,128 Charleston-Huntington Total 65 161,238 126,037 112,083 Charlotte Total 25 520,950 455,452 242,547 Charlottesville Total 183 32,000 31,680 21,522 Chattanooga Total 87 166,781 137,259 66,566 Cheyenne-Scottsbluff Total 196 37,243 25,314 3,631 Chicago Total 3 1,959,654 1,876,316 598,070 Chico-Redding Total 132 56,207 55,026 39,681 Cincinnati Total 35 445,648 353,877 164,458 Clarksburg-Weston Total 169 34,918 29,481 23,316 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) Total 19 953,032 797,418 204,298 Colorado Springs-Pueblo Total 89 136,670 124,381 78,026 Columbia, SC Total 77 219,841 185,142 85,091 Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo. Total 138 51,114 37,549 45,970 Columbus, GA Total 126 93,642 65,235 42,638 Columbus, OH Total 32 522,823 436,365 178,875 Columbus-Tupelo-West Point Total 133 45,972 30,917 57,243 Corpus Christi Total 129 90,289 70,592 44,173 Dallas-Ft. Worth Total 5 1,177,056 1,108,103 549,073 Davenport-R.I.-Moline Total 100 92,072 58,673 57,780 Dayton Total 64 277,149 235,812 69,142 Denver Total 17 641,157 621,892 285,768 Des Moines-Ames Total 72 110,202 66,121 101,149 Detroit Total 11 1,158,449 1,068,174 247,405 Dothan Total 172 21,551 16,338 28,934 Duluth-Superior Total 139 60,097 50,395 47,777 El Paso Total 91 107,016 96,734 73,949 Emira Total 174 47,400 38,520 19,789 Erie Total 149 69,344 56,789 30,691 Eugene Total 121 116,855 115,686 42,003 Eureka Total 195 30,387 25,079 13,896 Evansville Total 104 112,377 76,533 61,528 Fairbanks Total 202 11,481 6,889 1,004 Fargo-Valley City Total 116 99,045 54,672 53,912 Flint-Saginaw-Bay City Total 68 293,783 290,326 52,349 Fort Myers-Naples, Fla. Total 62 293,138 269,132 91,370 Fort Smith-Fayetteville, Ark. Total 101 127,316 112,467 50,344 Fort Wayne Total 109 85,617 72,005 53,341 Fresno-Visalia Total 55 167,053 165,403 104,195 Gainesville Total 163 54,890 47,032 15,593 Glendive Total 210 2,236 1,342 964 Grand Junction-Montrose Total 185 34,464 20,849 13,912 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo Total 39 390,742 386,584 130,847 Great Falls Total 191 18,622 11,173 22,124 Green Bay-Appleton Total 70 214,026 195,989 79,015 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem Total 46 310,177 259,329 151,549 Greenville-N.Bern-Washingtn Total 99 114,991 92,238 72,709 Greenville-Spartanburg Total 37 330,692 303,000 212,266 Greenwood-Greenville Total 190 24,775 13,679 16,929 Harlingen-Brownsville Total 86 114,603 96,553 96,342 Harrisburg-Lancaster Total 43 449,263 428,075 100,346 Harrisonburg Total 178 46,800 44,460 17,073 Hartford & New Haven Total 30 826,781 795,406 76,127 Hattiesburg-Laurel Total 167 48,616 29,011 Helena Total 205 12,170 7,302 7,190 Honolulu Total 69 316,046 264,809 1,815 Houston Total 10 1,087,819 1,061,103 391,607 Huntsville-Decatur Total 79 135,235 112,083 74,380 Idaho Falls-Pocatello Total 162 25,488 11,567 25,499 Indianapolis Total 26 621,498 591,143 194,321 Jackson, MS Total 94 145,160 136,079 89,583 Jackson, TN Total 177 18,821 11,293 24,038 Jacksonville Total 48 408,996 402,416 131,166 Johnstown-Altoona Total 103 148,859 126,553 47,658 Jonesboro Total 181 29,257 21,126 16,563 Joplin-Pittsburg Total 152 44,352 27,815 41,070 Juneau Total 207 10,203 6,122 2,475 Kansas City Total 31 488,399 400,896 151,554 Knoxville Total 61 287,922 273,433 124,329 La Crosse-Eau Claire Total 128 103,844 79,156 50,692 Lafayette, IN Total 189 28,500 28,215 9,484 Lafayette, LA Total 122 107,258 87,662 48,515 Lake Charles Total 175 42,741 31,878 24,524 Lansing Total 115 106,589 95,618 42,865 Laredo Total 184 31,912 26,806 11,960 Las Vegas Total 42 348,911 290,645 144,598 Lexington Total 63 178,209 118,986 87,945 Lima Total 187 24,384 19,670 8,108 Lincoln & Hastings-Krny Total 105 103,981 90,418 51,445 Little Rock-Pine Bluff Total 56 183,226 157,396 139,984 Los Angeles Total 2 2,543,211 2,318,101 1,284,780 Louisville Total 49 338,786 241,201 108,722 Lubbock Total 143 62,637 50,230 35,981 Macon Total 118 91,558 74,510 50,423 Madison Total 83 201,665 193,226 74,406 Mankato Total 199 36,025 25,503 6,865 Marquette Total 180 36,678 35,909 21,997 Medford-Klamath Falls Total 140 42,418 41,618 41,921 Memphis Total 50 270,401 251,604 174,932 Meridian Total 186 18,806 17,134 18,738 Miami Total 16 834,771 806,957 377,556 Milwaukee Total 34 413,369 368,285 159,521 Minneapolis-St. Paul Total 15 727,732 670,384 346,157 Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson Total 145 79,329 47,597 44,845 Missoula Total 164 34,194 21,011 26,748 Mobile-Pensacola Total 59 277,156 245,386 97,600 Monroe-El Dorado Total 137 54,900 49,189 44,369 Monterey-Salinas Total 125 111,245 110,279 43,870 Montgomery-Selma Total 120 115,867 94,725 47,563 Myrtle Beach-Florence Total 102 153,749 117,689 52,281 Nashville Total 29 487,663 465,924 221,100 New Orleans Total 51 337,390 298,618 100,784 New York Total 1 5,759,363 5,512,069 668,129 Norfolk-Porsmth-Newpt Nws Total 45 459,428 415,217 82,245 North Platte Total 210 5,611 5,555 3,355 Odessa-Midland Total 150 71,086 48,730 29,900 Oklahoma City Total 41 328,549 275,963 107,349 Omaha Total 74 210,818 174,443 53,219 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn Total 18 1,030,223 900,948 235,862 Ottumwa-Kirksville Total 201 13,677 7,554 12,982 Paducah-Cap Girard-Harsbg Total 81 74,443 53,626 98,507 Palm Springs, Calif.
Recommended publications
  • PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12Th St., S.W

    PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12Th St., S.W

    PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: https://www.fcc.gov Washington, D.C. 20554 TTY: 1-888-835-5322 DA 17-889 Released: September 14, 2017 MEDIA BUREAU EXTENDS DEADLINE FOR MVPDs TO FILE EEO PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORTS (FCC FORM 396-C) TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, AND IDENTIFIES THOSE THAT MUST RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION QUESTIONS Pursuant to Section 76.77 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.77, by September 30 of each year multi-channel video program distributors (“MVPDs”) must file with the Commission an FCC Form 396-C, Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, for employment units with six or more full-time employees. By this Notice we remind all MVPDs of this recurring obligation, provide details on the filing process, and identify those MVPDs that must complete the Supplementary Investigation Sheet portion of the form. Because of technical difficulties in preparing for the filing, we extend the deadline to October 16, 2017. In addition, if filers, particularly those in hurricane-damaged areas, need more time to file, they can email [email protected] and request an extension of time. Users can access the electronic filing system via the Internet from the Commission’s website at: https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts. Paper versions of the form will not be accepted unless accompanied by an appropriate request for waiver of the electronic filing requirement. The Commission has recognized the need for limited waivers of that requirement in light of the “burden that electronic filing could place upon some [entities] who are seeking to serve the public interest, with limited resources, and succeed in a highly competitive local environment.” Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and Processes, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23061 (1998).
  • Membership List

    Membership List

    ALABAMA 811 MEMBERSHIP LIST AT&T/D Bright House Networks – Birmingham AT&T/T Bright House Networks – Eufaula & Wetumpka AGL Resources Brindlee Mountain Telephone Company Air Products & Chemicals Brookside, Town of Alabama Department of Transportation Buckeye Partners LP Alabama Gas Corporation Buhl, Elrod & Holman Water Authority Alabama Power Company Butler, Town of Utilities Board Alabama Wastewater Systems, LLC Cable Alabama Corporation Alabaster, City of Cable One Alabaster Water Board Cable Options AlaTenn Pipeline Company Calera Gas, LLC Albertville Municipal Utilities Board Calera Water & Gas Board Alexander City, City of Camellia Communications American Midstream Camp Hill, Town of American Traffic Solutions Canadian National Railway American Water Carbon Hill Housing Authority Andalusia Utilities Board Carbon Hill Utilities Board Anniston Water Works and Sewer Board Carroll’s Creek Water Authority Arapaho Communications, LP Cave Spring, City of Ardmore Telephone Central Alabama Electric Cooperative Arlington Properties Central Talladega County Water District Ashton Place Apartments Central Water Works Atlas Energy Centreville Water Athens Utilities, City of CenturyTel of Alabama Auburn Water Works Board, City of Charter Communications of Alabama Baldwin County Commission Charter Communications – Lanett Baldwin County EMC Cherokee Water and Gas Department Baldwin County Sewer Service Childersburg Water, Sewer & Gas Board Bakerhill Water Authority Children’s of Alabama Bay Gas Storage Company, Inc. Chilton Water Authority Bayou La Batre Utilities CITGO Petroleum Corporation Bear Creek/Hackleburg Housing Authority Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas District Beauregard Water Authority Clayton Housing Authority Belforest Water System Cleburne County Water Authority Berry, Town of Coffee County Water Authority Berry Housing Authority Coker Water Authority, Inc. Bessemer Water Colbert County Rural Water System Beulah Utilties District Colonial Pipeline Bioflow – Russell Lands, Inc.

  • ONN 6 Eng Codelist Only Webversion.Indd

    6-DEVICE UNIVERSAL REMOTE Model: 100020904 CODELIST Need help? We’re here for you every day 7 a.m. – 9 p.m. CST. Give us a call at 1-888-516-2630 Please visit the website “www.onn-support.com” to get more information. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CODELIST TV 3 STREAM 5 STB 5 AUDIO SOUNDBAR 21 BLURAY DVD 22 2 CODELIST TV TV EQD 2014, 2087, 2277 EQD Auria 2014, 2087, 2277 Acer 4143 ESA 1595, 1963 Admiral 3879 eTec 2397 Affinity 3717, 3870, 3577, Exorvision 3953 3716 Favi 3382 Aiwa 1362 Fisher 1362 Akai 1675 Fluid 2964 Akura 1687 Fujimaro 1687 AOC 3720, 2691, 1365, Funai 1595, 1864, 1394, 2014, 2087 1963 Apex Digital 2397, 4347, 4350 Furrion 3332, 4093 Ario 2397 Gateway 1755, 1756 Asus 3340 GE 1447 Asustek 3340 General Electric 1447 Atvio 3638, 3636, 3879 GFM 1886, 1963, 1864 Atyme 2746 GPX 3980, 3977 Audiosonic 1675 Haier 2309, 1749, 1748, Audiovox 1564, 1276, 1769, 3382, 1753, 3429, 2121 2293, 4398, 2214 Auria 4748, 2087, 2014, Hannspree 1348, 2786 2277 Hisense 3519, 4740, 4618, Avera 2397, 2049 2183, 5185, 1660, Avol 2735, 4367, 3382, 3382, 4398 3118, 1709 Hitachi 1643, 4398, 5102, Axen 1709 4455, 3382, 0679 Axess 3593 Hiteker 3118 BenQ 1756 HKPro 3879, 2434 Blu:sens 2735 Hyundai 4618 Bolva 2397 iLo 1463, 1394 Broksonic 1892 Insignia 2049, 1780, 4487, Calypso 4748 3227, 1564, 1641, Champion 1362 2184, 1892, 1423, Changhong 4629 1660, 1963, 1463 Coby 3627 iSymphony 3382, 3429, 3118, Commercial Solutions 1447 3094 Conia 1687 JVC 1774, 1601, 3393, Contex 4053, 4280 2321, 2271, 4107, Craig 3423 4398, 5182, 4105, Crosley 3115 4053, 1670, 1892, Curtis
  • Agreed Order

    Agreed Order

    tN'I'F.il] {lt}(Ctit't' cCIL:I{T $r ccoK couNT"l,! tI-[.INOtS C O I, ] N'I-}' D J: PA I{]']I.f I]N'I' * I"A \Y N IvI 51 O N 'rrir elr: ( )rtlre;t, l'1,i: n Ii tl. hr,. l(lIl-L 1)1l.l(r 5t rtr:r:,," )r lrrllr.:rr ( -rrl*nr-l;rr I l I ),.:irr:Ll:tttr .l isruqrl t-)rukr l'l ,lS a-.\lill: l:rtruirrli t,r irr: hctrtl lrt tllr: I)rllli.:$:enr{r,"igilcv rrrllitru t{, (rrlrur.tlrrr ,,\rirtr:rl \rrrlr,rjzirry i.lrL:r, I"f IS I IllRItlfl' ORt]l:,ItIiIl: -,t";"0-*ei #tu r"d'€ -{;i '*ry 5t/ t^utli i Hi i,r;{ f'rss''u"i"" iiisr:)'ii{is'i ffur,aft r,* { .e.uq r?6 I ttliilrlltltllr.rtr nl r':tltlc ()l)r'tilt{}t'rLtltsn:!br,:r'r lirr'rrsr irr tlril;r,'tt,,r, l)lllrrJ,rll t6 Sr:clir:rr irl rri"t}:r: i ;rhli'{..ir-ir1ultir;rrr{)r:r l',,1i."- r,r,TttE*P/-615'_t)L ll q il+ac f Ayril f X,**i S v Ftc,ts.grft 1,; ln rSTr u-yxr1 H 7c 6i,ittt 7c .rtrtr'!,tff.'ytt lrs ?>;tiii"7,aF;:z"ri.L-q.Zii,rar Ltilil.irl)\\l)\((l.l'll'.1 rll\': 4/L- f*foit-'r,.fyf')-'kfat- 1{{Sle''2rl't: ' ps,1(aC 5t: I /iO Lt? t *t 1':Ltrl ;\. l)ut"li,I:sr1., l|{H5ill .,\rl:rrrr frl.
  • Southwestern Commission (Region A) Broadband Assessment

    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
  • Promoting Cancon in the Age of New Media

    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.
  • J.R Beaudrie

    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
  • DACC Template

    DACC Template

    2018 Dotthhhaaannn,, AAlllaaabbaammmaa O F F I C I A L • W E L C O M E • G U I D E Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce WWW.DOTHAN.COM We’ve builtt the StO i t 4tt LeDn CaS o DeT i AlBm region’s llargestt a t LeDn CaS o SeIu Lg-TT m DiA Il T . StO C e Ne Wr. That’s why Southeeast Alabama Medical Ceenter R΍HUVWKH UHJLRQȇVPRVW DGYDQFHG VWURNH WHDP 1RW RQO\ GR ZH KDYH WKH PRVWH[SHULHQFHG PXOWLVSHFLDOW\WUDLQHG VWURNH DQG FULWLFDO FDUHQHXURORJLVWV RQ RQH WHDP ZHȇYH EXLOW WKH ODUJHVW VWURNH QHWZRUNLQ WKH UHJLRQ 8VLQJ WHOHPHGLFLQH ORFDO SDUDPHGLFV DQGORFDO (PHUJHQF\ 5RRPV FDQ FRPPXQLFDWH ZLWK RXU 1HXURORJLVWVWR SODQ LPPHGLDWH WUHDWPHQW WKDW KHOSV VDYHV EUDLQ FHOOV$QG LI QHFHVVDU\ \RX ZLOO EH WUDQVSRUWHG WR 6RXWKHDVW STROKE CARE NETWORK $ODEDPD0HGLFDO &HQWHU D &HUWLȴHG 6WURNH &DUH &HQWHU Your ZKHUHRXU SK\VLFLDQV DUH VSHFLDOO\ WUDLQHG LQ VWURNH WUHDWPHQW With so much eexpert care in one placcece, there’sthere s no need to go outside the region for stroke care. StrokeCareNetworrk.com VVisiisiitDotDoothathaann o Hototels eventts atatt ractions entertrttaa i n m ent sporttst food shopping fessttivavals outdoor cultlttureure visisit MMichelin has MManufactureded Tiirese inn the Wiiregraeass for over 388 years. US4 - Dothan PPlant G d S vii G A L Waay DOTHANN • OZARK 6 ENTERPRRISE • TROYY LOCATION NS . 4 Arts, Culture & Community 4 Arts & Recreation 5 Worship The Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce has been 6 Business & Economic Development 6 Agribusiness helping shape the future of the Wiregrass area since its 6 Manufacturing foundation in 1919.
  • Complaints by Service Provider

    Complaints by Service Provider

    Appendix A ‐ Complaints by Service Provider Complaints Change all % of % Concluded Resolved Closed Resolved Closed Accepted Issued Accepted Rejected Accepted Y/Y Provider Accepted and Concluded Complaint Pre‐Investigation Investigation Reco. Decisions #100 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 1010100 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 1010580 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 1010620 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 1010738 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 1011295.com 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 295.ca 0.00% 0 ‐100.0% 000000000 3Web 0.04% 4 ‐42.9% 550000000 450Tel 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 768812 Ontario Inc. 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 8COM 0.61% 69 ‐ 688126330000 A dimension humaine 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Acanac Inc. 0.68% 77 ‐35.8% 79 42 3 28 51000 Access Communications Inc. 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Achatplus Inc. 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 ACN Canada 0.66% 75 41.5% 70 50 5 11 40000 AEBC Internet Corporation 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 AEI Internet 0.04% 5 400.0% 310200000 AIC Global Communications 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 Alberta High Speed 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 Allstream inc. 0.04% 4 ‐ 431000000 Altima Telecom 0.02% 2 ‐ 110000000 America Tel 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Amtelecom Telco GP Inc. 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Auracom 0.02% 2 ‐ 210100000 Avenue 0.00% 0 ‐ 000000000 Axess Communications 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Axsit 0.01% 1 ‐ 100100000 B2B2C Inc. 0.02% 2 ‐33.3% 320100000 Bell Aliant Regional Communications LP 1.41% 160 ‐1.2% 162 124 6 21 10 1000 Bell Canada 32.20% 3,652 ‐6.6% 3,521 2,089 235 889 307 0110 BlueTone Canada 0.03% 3 ‐ 311100000 BMI Internet 0.00% 0 0.0% 000000000 Bragg Communications Inc.
  • Rogers Sportsnet PPV (Terrestrial and Direct-To-Home Services) – Licence Renewal

    Rogers Sportsnet PPV (Terrestrial and Direct-To-Home Services) – Licence Renewal

    Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2014-344 PDF version Route reference: 2014-151 Ottawa, 25 June 2014 Mountain Cablevision Limited and Fido Solutions Inc., partners in a general partnership carrying on business as Rogers Communications Partnership Across Canada Applications 2014-0021-7 and 2014-0022-5, received 10 January 2014 Rogers Sportsnet PPV (terrestrial and direct-to-home services) – Licence renewal The Commission renews the broadcasting licences for the national terrestrial pay-per- view service Rogers Sportsnet PPV and the national direct-to-home pay-per-view service Rogers Sportsnet PPV from 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2019. Applications 1. The Commission received two applications by Mountain Cablevision Limited and Fido Solutions Inc., partners in a general partnership carrying on business as Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers) to renew the broadcasting licences for the national terrestrial pay-per-view service Rogers Sportsnet PPV and the national direct-to-home pay-per-view service Rogers Sportsnet PPV, which expire 31 August 2014. 2. The Commission received a comment from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (CEEA) with respect to these applications. The Commission considers that the comment by the CEEA, which deals with energy consumption by set-top boxes, falls outside the scope of this licence renewal proceeding. The public record for these applications can be found on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca or by using the application numbers provided above. Non-compliance 3. Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2014-151 stated that the licensee was in apparent non-compliance with its condition of licence related to closed captioning. As set out in Broadcasting Decisions 2005-83 and 2005-84, the licensee is required, by condition of licence, to provide closed captioning for not less than 90% of all programs aired during the broadcast year.
  • Office Depot 12Th Anniversary Sweepstakes

    Office Depot 12Th Anniversary Sweepstakes

    TLC SEASON “DASH TO DOLLARS” SWEEPSTAKES OFFICIAL RULES NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. MUST BE 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AT THE TIME OF ENTRY TO ENTER OR WIN. OFFERED ONLY TO U.S. RESIDENTS OF THE 50 UNITED STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND PUERTO RICO WHO ARE CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS IN GOOD STANDING TO ONE OF THE PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS LISTED IN SECTION 13. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED. 1. ELIGIBILITY: The TLC Season “Dash to Dollars” Sweepstakes (the “Sweepstakes”) Sweepstakes is open only to legal residents of the fifty (50) United States, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, who are 21 years of age or older as of the date of entry (the “Entrant”). Entrant must be a qualifying customer, in good standing, who is a current subscriber to select multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") providers (see Section 13 for a list of qualifying MVPD providers). Individuals must have access to the Internet in order to enter or win. Void outside of the fifty (50) United States, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, and where prohibited or restricted by law. Employees of Discovery Communications, LLC, (hereinafter known as the “Sponsor”) its respective affiliates, subsidiaries, advertising, production and promotion agencies, and the immediate families and members of the same household of each are not eligible. All federal, state, local and municipal laws and regulations apply. 2. TIMING: The Sweepstakes is scheduled from 12:00:00 am Eastern Time (“ET”) on November 28, 2016 and ends at 11:59:59 pm ET on December 12, 2016.
  • Wireless Competition in Canada

    Wireless Competition in Canada

    Volume 7 • Issue 20 • August 2014 WIRELESS COMPETITION IN CANADA: DAMN THE TORPEDOES! THE TRIUMPH OF POLITICS OVER ECONOMICS† Jeffrey Church, Professor, Department of Economics and Director, Digital Economy Program, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary Andrew Wilkins, Research Associate, Digital Economy Program, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary SUMMARY Last year featured a high stakes battle between two mighty protagonists. On one side, allegedly representing the interests of all Canadians, the federal government. On the other side, Bell, Rogers, and Telus. The issue at stake: What institutions should govern the allocation of resources in the provision of wireless services? Should the outcomes — prices, quality, availability, and other terms of service — be determined by the market? Or should the government intervene? The answer to these questions should depend on the extent of competition and the ability of wireless providers to exercise inefficient market power — raise prices above their long run average cost of providing services. Do Bell, Rogers, and Telus exercise substantial inefficient market power? The accumulated wisdom of market economies is that state intervention inevitably is very costly, given asymmetries of information, uncertainty, and political pressure. At the very least the onus on those demanding and proposing government action is to provide robust evidence of the substantial exercise of inefficient market power. This paper is a contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the existence and extent of market power in the provision of wireless services in Canada. The conventional wisdom that competition in wireless services was insufficient was challenged by our earlier School of Public Policy paper.†† In that study we demonstrated that the Canadian wireless sector was sufficiently competitive.