DOCSLIB.ORG

Opencable™ Specifications Opencable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opencable™ Specifications Opencable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 OpenCable™ Specifications OpenCable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 ISSUED Notice This OpenCable specification is the result of a cooperative effort undertaken at the direction of Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. for the benefit of the cable industry and its customers. This document may contain references to other documents not owned or controlled by CableLabs®. Use and understanding of this document may require access to such other documents. Designing, manufacturing, distributing, using, selling, or servicing products, or providing services, based on this document may require intellectual property licenses from third parties for technology referenced in this document. Neither CableLabs nor any member company is responsible to any party for any liability of any nature whatsoever resulting from or arising out of use or reliance upon this document, or any document referenced herein. This document is furnished on an "AS IS" basis and neither CableLabs nor its members provides any representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, noninfringement, or fitness for a particular purpose of this document, or any document referenced herein. Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. 2007-2012 OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 OpenCable™ Specifications Document Status Sheet Document Control Number: OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 Document Title: OpenCable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification Revision History: I01 - Released 7/20/2007 I08 - Released 9/4/2009 I02 - Released 9/21/2007 I09 - Released 12/11/2009 I03 - Released 11/13/2007 I10 - Released 5/7/2010 I04 - Released 3/28/2008 I11 - Released 2/4/2011 I05 - Released 11/14/2008 I12 - Released 5/12/2011 I06 - Released 2/6/2009 I13 - Released 1/12/2012 I07 - Released 5/8/2009 I14 - Released 5/31/2012 Date: May 31, 2012 Status: Work in Draft Issue d Closed Progress Distribution Restrictions: Author Only CL/Member CL/ Member/ Public Vendor Key to Document Status Codes Work in Progress An incomplete document, designed to guide discussion and generate feedback that may include several alternative requirements for consideration. Draft A document in specification format considered largely complete, but lacking review by Members and vendors. Drafts are susceptible to substantial change during the review process. Issue d A stable document, which has undergone rigorous member and vendor review and is suitable for product design and development, cross-vendor interoperability, and for certification testing. Close d A static document, reviewed, tested, validated, and closed to further engineering change requests to the specification through CableLabs. Trademarks CableCARD™, CableHome®, CableLabs®, CableNET®, CableOffice™, CablePC™, DCAS™, DOCSIS®, DPoE™, EBIF™, eDOCSIS™, EuroDOCSIS™, EuroPacketCable™, Go2BroadbandSM, M-Card™, M-CMTS™, OCAP™, OpenCable™, PacketCable™, PCMM™, PeerConnect™, and tru2way® are marks of Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. ii CableLabs 5/31/12 OpenCable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 Contents 1 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 NORMATIVE REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 REFERENCE ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 OpenCable Bundle Requirements...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Other References ................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 4 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................. 4 5 OC-STB-HOS T-MIB ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 ANNEX A MIB OB J ECTS REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................97 APPENDIX I UNDERSTANDING THE OPENCABLE HOST MIB ............................................................................ 108 I.1 CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE........................................................................................................................................... 114 I.2 USE CASES - A PRACT ICAL GUIDE TO THE HOST 2.X MIB................................................................................. 117 I.2.1 Use Case 1 - Host Tuned to Analog Channel.................................................................................................. 117 I.2.2 Use Case 2 - Host Tuned to a Digital Channel............................................................................................... 120 I.2.3 Use Case 3 - Host Tuned to Digital Channel with HDMI Output ............................................................... 121 I.3 MIB WORKSHEET ...................................................................................................................................................... 124 APPENDIX II REVISION HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 127 Figures FIGURE I-1 - HOST MIB MAP - PART 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 109 FIGURE I-2 - HOST MIB MAP - PART 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 110 FIGURE I-3 - INT ERFACE RELATIONSHIPS................................................................................................................................ 113 FIGURE I-4 - PROGRAM CONTENT INFORMATION.................................................................................................................. 114 FIGURE I-5 - CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE ...................................................................................................................................... 116 FIGURE I-6 - REQUIRED INT ERFACE OBJECT S - ANALOG CONTENT .................................................................................. 118 FIGURE I-7 - PROGRAM STATUS TABLE - ANALOG CONTENT............................................................................................. 119 FIGURE I-8 - PROGRAM STATUS TABLE - DIGITAL CONTENT ............................................................................................. 120 FIGURE I-9 - DVIHDMITABLE - DIGITAL CONTENT ............................................................................................................. 122 FIGURE I-10 - HDMI OUTPUT PROGRAM STATUS ................................................................................................................. 123 Tables TABLE A-1 - MIB IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................... 97 TABLE A-2 - SNMP ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 97 TABLE I-1 - OCSTBHOST INT ERFACES OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 111 5/31/12 CableLabs iii OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 OpenCable™ Specifications This page left blank intentionally. iv CableLabs 5/31/12 OpenCable Host Device 2.X MIB Specification OC-SP-MIB-HOST2.X-I14-120531 1 SCOPE 1.1 Introduction and Purpose This specification defines the HOST-MIB requirements for OpenCable Host 2.X devices. 1.2 Requirements Throughout this document, the words that are used to define the significance of particular requirements are capitalized. These words are: "SHALL" This word means that the item is an absolute requirement of this specification. "SHALL NOT" This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition of this specification. "SHOULD" This word means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing a different course. "SHOULD NOT" This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the listed behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digital Cable Television in the United States
    シャープ技報 第78号・2000年12月 Digital Cable Television in the United States 米 国 の デジタルケーブルテレビ事 情 Craig K. Tanner* Abstract とってもその新技術を使った新しいビジネスにとって も，テレビを変えるものと期待されている。本稿では Digital television services have been rapidly deployed in 前述の新しいディジタル革新期を迎えるにあたって， the U.S.A. since the first direct-to-home satellite systems 重要になると思われる技術／ビジネス／規格の立場か were deployed in mid-1994. By the end of 2000, there will ら見た要点を解説する。また，シャープ米国研究所 be more than fourteen million digital DBS subscribers, （Sharp Laboratories of America）が果たすべき重要な技 more than 160 digital terrestrial TV stations on the air, and 術要件についても解説していく。 more than nine million digital cable subscribers. Despite this rapid rollout, the U.S. is still in its first phase of digital television deployment. In this introductory phase, digital Introduction technology has been focused primarily on providing more channels, higher picture and sound quality, and electronic During the past six years, digital television technology program guides. In 2001, a new phase begins in earnest. has been rapidly deployed in the United States. By the end Digital cable systems, in particular, will be used to provide of 2000, the direct broadcast satellite industry will serve true interactive features that will transform television, both more than 14 million of the 100 million U.S. TV for its viewers and for the businesses that pioneer these households. Digital cable will be in more than 9 million new capabilities. This article reviews some of the key homes. Terrestrial digital television receivers will be in an technical, business and regulatory factors that will be estimated 114,000 homes by year-end 2000, with more important in this new phase, and also highlights some of than 158 digital stations on the air.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broadcast Flag: It's Not Just TV
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 57 Issue 2 Article 7 3-2005 The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV Wendy Seltzer Electronic Frontier Foundation Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Seltzer, Wendy (2005) "The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 57 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol57/iss2/7 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV Wendy Seltzer* I am not much of a TV person. My only set, non-HD, still picks up its channels through rabbit ears. The broadcast flag still gets me steamed, though, so much so that I recently built a high-definition digital video recorder just to beat the flag mandate. It is not about the TV. Rather, it is not about TV as broadcast to the passive consumer, to be received on single-purpose boxes. It is about TV as it could be, with innovative companies and tinkerers making TV broadcasts a core part of the converged home media network. The crippling of this kind of TV is an early warning against a pervasive technology regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • WGAW Reply Comments to the FCC on Set-Top Box Competition
    Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Expanding Consumers’ Video Navigation Choices ) MB Docket No. 16-42 ) Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices ) CS Docket No. 97-80 ) REPLY COMMENTS OF WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA, WEST, INC. Marvin Vargas Senior Research & Policy Analyst Ellen Stutzman Senior Director, Research & Public Policy Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. 7000 West 3rd Street Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 951-4000 May 23, 2016 Summary It is often the case that when new technology emerges incumbent providers make alarmist predictions about guaranteed harms resulting from these innovations. While some concerns may be reasonable, the overwhelming majority of outlined harms are never realized. As CBS Chairman and CEO Les Moonves said in 2015, “All these technology initiatives that supposedly were going to hurt us have actually helped us. SVOD has helped us. DVR has helped us. The ability to go online with our own content, CBS.com, and the trailing episodes – all have helped us.”1 With the entertainment industry currently dominated by a handful of companies that have never been more profitable, it is clear that new technology and forms of content distribution have helped, not hurt the industry. While new technology can create some business uncertainty, there is strong evidence that pro-consumer developments that make legal content more accessible to viewers benefits both consumers and content creators. The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules for a competitive navigation device market follow this path. The current pay-TV set-top box market is controlled by incumbent distributors who charge consumers high fees and exercise their gatekeeping power to limit content competition.
    [Show full text]
  • Television a La Carte: American Broadcasting Cos
    THIS VERSION DOES NOT CONTAIN PAGE NUMBERS. PLEASE CONSULT THE PRINT OR ONLINE DATABASE VERSIONS FOR THE PROPER CITATION INFORMATION. NOTE TELEVISION A LA CARTE: AMERICAN BROADCASTING COS. V. AEREO AND HOW FEDERAL COURTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW ARE IMPACTING THE FUTURE OF THE MEDIUM Andrew Fraser I. INTRODUCTION Somewhere in Brooklyn, a large warehouse holds a bundle of over one thousand rabbit-ear antennas.1 In many ways these antennas resemble the ones that rested on top of generations of older television sets before the advent of cable, except for one small fact—these rabbit-ear antennas are each roughly the size of a dime.2 It is ironic that this ancient, seemingly outdated piece of television technology might signal the medium’s newest direction, but with Aereo at the helm, this may actually be the case. Aereo is a technology platform currently available exclusively in New York City that airs live broadcast television through the Internet to a subscriber’s mobile device, computer, or web-enabled television.3 When an Aereo subscriber wishes to watch a broadcast, he or she instructs an assigned Aereo antenna to capture signals from the public airwaves and to transmit them over the Internet to the subscriber’s mobile device.4 No two subscribers ever use the same antenna at the same time, and Aereo also offers DVR recording technology, so subscribers can watch shows live or recorded.5 With this incredible merging of both old and new technology, Aereo could have an enormous impact on the way consumers watch television, assuming that it can first survive what promise to be some intense legal challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell County
    PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PO Box 80 PAID Jamestown, KY 42629-0080 SOMERSET, KY PERMIT NO. 299 NATIONAL PROGRAMMING COSTS INCREASE FOR 2021, DUO BROADBAND EXPLORING OPTIONS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS Dear Valued TV Subscriber: Unfortunately, even during the current COVID-19 crisis, national television programmers (such as ESPN, TNT, USA, Discovery Channel, Comedy Central and others) along with FOX, NBC, CBS, and ABC TV affiliate stations have once again announced rate increases for 2021 to satellite operators and cable providers like DUO Broadband. Please refer to the inside pages for rates effective February 1, 2021. OUR RATE INCREASES REFLECTS ONLY THE COST INCREASES FROM PROGRAMMERS, BROADCASTERS and OPERATIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICES. We understand your frustration with these annual cost increases, especially during these trying times. We are frustrated as well. That is why we are exploring expanded options that offer you more choice and more affordable plans. In the meantime, DUO Broadband will continue to provide local weather, regional news broadcasts and fan favorite sports programs like the UK Wildcats, U of L Cardinals, and WKU Hilltoppers. We appreciate your business in 2020, and will continue to offer the high-quality programming you demand along with reliable local service that you expect from us to back it up. As always, we are available by phone or in person at the local customer center to discuss how DUO Broadband can best serve you in 2021. Sincerely, DUO Broadband (270) 343-3131 2021 Russell HFC, IPTV & Fiber PRIVACY NOTICE The Federal Cable Communications purpose of offering and rendering cable information that we collect and maintain Policy Act of 1984 contains certain television service and other services to you.
    [Show full text]
  • Opencable™ Specifications Opencable Unidirectional Receiver
    OpenCable™ Specifications OpenCable Unidirectional Receiver OC-SP-OCUR-I10-100910 ISSUED Notice This OpenCable specification is a cooperative effort undertaken at the direction of Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs®) for the benefit of the cable industry. This document may contain references to other documents not owned or controlled by CableLabs. Use and understanding of this document may require access to such other documents. Designing, manufacturing, distributing, using, selling, or servicing products, or providing services, based on this document may require intellectual property licenses for technology referenced in the document. Neither CableLabs, nor any other entity participating in the creation of this document, is responsible for any liability of any nature whatsoever resulting from or arising out of use or reliance upon this document by any party. This document is furnished on an AS-IS basis and neither CableLabs, nor other participating entity, provides any representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding its accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose. © Copyright 2005-2010 Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. All rights reserved. OC-SP-OCUR-I10-100910 OpenCable™ Specifications Document Status Sheet Document Control Number: OC-SP-OCUR-I10-100910 Document Title: OpenCable Unidirectional Receiver Revision History: I01 – Released January 9, 2006 I02 – Released February 10, 2006 I03 – Released April 13, 2006 I04 – Released June 22, 2006 I05 – Released October 31, 2006 I06 – Released November 13, 2007 I07 – Released June 20, 2008 I08 – Released November 14, 2008 I09 – Released May 7, 2010 I10 – Released September 10, 2010 Date: September 10, 2010 Status: Work in Draft Issued Closed Progress Distribution Restrictions: Author Only CL/Member CL/ Member/ Public Vendor Key to Document Status Codes: Work in Progress An incomplete document, designed to guide discussion and generate feedback that may include several alternative requirements for consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broadcast Flag: Compatible with Copyright Law & Incompatible with Digital Media Consumers
    607 THE BROADCAST FLAG: COMPATIBLE WITH COPYRIGHT LAW & INCOMPATIBLE WITH DIGITAL MEDIA CONSUMERS ANDREW W. BAGLEY* & JUSTIN S. BROWN** I. INTRODUCTION Is it illegal to make a high-quality recording of your favorite TV show using your Sony digital video recorder with your Panasonic TV, which you then edit on your Dell computer for use on your Apple iPod? Of course it’s legal, but is it possible to use devices from multiple brands together to accomplish your digital media goal? Yes, well, at least for now. What if the scenario involved high-definition television (“HDTV”) devices? Would the answers be as clear? Not as long as digital-content protection schemes like the Broadcast Flag are implemented. Digital media and Internet connectivity have revolutionized consumer entertainment experiences by offering high-quality portable content.1 Yet these attractive formats also are fueling a copyright infringement onslaught through a proliferation of unauthorized Internet piracy via peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks.2 As a result, lawmakers,3 administrative agencies,4 and courts5 are confronted * Candidate for J.D., University of Miami School of Law, 2009; M.A. Mass Communication, University of Florida, 2006; B.A. Political Science, University of Florida, 2005; B.S. Public Relations, University of Florida, 2005 ** Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, University of Florida; Ph.D. Mass Communica- tions, The Pennsylvania State University, 2001 1 Andrew Keen, Web 2.0: The Second Generation of the Internet has Arrived. It's Worse Than You Think, WEEKLY STANDARD, Feb. 13, 2006, http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Con- tent/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp (last visited Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Underlying Motivations in the Broadcast Flag Debate
    Underlying Motivations in the Broadcast Flag Debate Allan Friedman,a Roshan Baliga, b Deb Dasguptac and Anna Dreyerd Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Washington DC September 21, 2003 Abstract: As the rollout of digital television progresses, content owners have expressed great concern for the security of their intellectual property if released unfettered across the airwaves in high definition digital form. The proposed solution, the broadcast flag, is to be attached to a digital broadcast signal, and would control to how the content could be used: to which devices it could be sent and how many times it could be copied. The content industry, led by MPAA, claims that this scheme will protect their content and, if it is implemented into the DTV infrastructure, they will freely release their content. Implementation requires the support of a variety of other actors, many of whom claims to support the flag as well. This paper posits that the probable benefits to many of these actors are distinct from their stated goals of supporting the technologically-embedded policy. After a brief description of what the broadcast flag and its history, we assess its utility as a policy tool. Since digital rights management problems in many ways resemble traditional information security issues, we posit that the formal threat model analysis of systems security is particularly useful in testing the robustness of a given system against a range of attacks. The efficacy of the flag is thus tested with a threat model analysis in the context of several digital rights management goals. We find that, while the flag would not successfully keep content off the Internet, it might offer content providers several other concrete benefits in controlling their content, including blocking heretofore popular consumer behaviors and shifting the balance of content control towards the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Tru2way™ Platform for Bidirectional Cable Communication Launches
    October 27, 2008 Tru2way™ Platform for Bidirectional Cable Communication Launches Comcast Corporation and Panasonic have announced the first deployment of Tru2way™ bidirectional digital cable technology. Tru2way was developed by CableLabs based on the OpenCable™ specification and is a Java-based open application platform. It is being promoted as a digital CableCARD™ system that enables two- way communication between a digital-cable-ready TV set or other device and a cable operator’s head end to provide viewers with a rich interactive experience. According to a statement from Panasonic, “the technology creates a common software platform that will enable cable companies, consumer electronics companies, content developers, network programmers and others to extend interactivity to the TV set and other kinds of devices.” On October 15, 2008, Comcast activated the technology on its cable systems in Chicago and Denver. Panasonic HDTV sets with tru2way capability were also made available at selected retail outlets in these areas. The new Panasonic 42” and 50” Viera sets have built-in tru2way CableCARD slots enabling consumers to receive the cable electronic program guide and access two-way digital cable programming, like video on demand, pay-per-view, and other services, without a cable operator-supplied set-top box. To see the announcement from Panasonic and Comcast click here. Another announcement, from the Consumer Electronics Association, is available here. The advantage of the bidirectional cable card for consumers is that it removes the need for another set- top device around the TV and potentially reduces the equipment fee cable operators charge to lease their set-top components.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 84 | Number 1 Article 3 12-1-2005 The edeF ral Computer Commission Kevin Werbach Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (2005). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol84/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FEDERAL COMPUTER COMMISSION KEVIN WERBACH* The conventional wisdom that the computer industry thrives in the absence of government regulation is wrong. Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rules touch every personal computer ever made. Over the last quarter-century, the FCC has steadily increasedits influence over personalcomputing devices and applications. Perhaps surprisingly, though, the "Federal Computer Commission" has largely been a positive force in the technology sector. Regulators are now poised to take several actions that could shape the future of the Internet and the computer industry. In this environment, exposing the Federal Computer Commission provides a foundation for reasoned policy approaches. The fate of a dynamic and important set of industries should not be decided under the influence of a myth. INTRODU CTION ....................................................................................... 2 I. FEAR AND LOATHING .............................................................. 8 II. FCC COMPUTER REGULATION: PAST AND PRESENT ............. 14 A. Computers Invade the Phone Network ............................ 16 1. The Battle Over Terminal Attachments .................... 16 2. The Computer Inquiries and Open Network A rchitecture ................................................................
    [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]
  • American Broadcasting Company from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Jump To: Navigation, Search for the Australian TV Network, See Australian Broadcasting Corporation
    Scholarship applications are invited for Wiki Conference India being held from 18- <="" 20 November, 2011 in Mumbai. Apply here. Last date for application is August 15, > 2011. American Broadcasting Company From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the Australian TV network, see Australian Broadcasting Corporation. For the Philippine TV network, see Associated Broadcasting Company. For the former British ITV contractor, see Associated British Corporation. American Broadcasting Company (ABC) Radio Network Type Television Network "America's Branding Broadcasting Company" Country United States Availability National Slogan Start Here Owner Independent (divested from NBC, 1943–1953) United Paramount Theatres (1953– 1965) Independent (1965–1985) Capital Cities Communications (1985–1996) The Walt Disney Company (1997– present) Edward Noble Robert Iger Anne Sweeney Key people David Westin Paul Lee George Bodenheimer October 12, 1943 (Radio) Launch date April 19, 1948 (Television) Former NBC Blue names Network Picture 480i (16:9 SDTV) format 720p (HDTV) Official abc.go.com Website The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American commercial broadcasting television network. Created in 1943 from the former NBC Blue radio network, ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company and is part of Disney-ABC Television Group. Its first broadcast on television was in 1948. As one of the Big Three television networks, its programming has contributed to American popular culture. Corporate headquarters is in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City,[1] while programming offices are in Burbank, California adjacent to the Walt Disney Studios and the corporate headquarters of The Walt Disney Company. The formal name of the operation is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and that name appears on copyright notices for its in-house network productions and on all official documents of the company, including paychecks and contracts.
    [Show full text]