No. SJC THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
|
|
- Cameron Alexander
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT No. SJC DIRECTV, LLC and DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTS, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. ON DIRECT APPELLATE REVIEW FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE John Bergmayer Senior Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW, Suite 410 Washington, D.C (202) Karen A. Pickett (BBO # ) Pickett Law Offices, P.C. 22 Batterymarch St., 4th Floor Boston, Massachusetts (-617) COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC.KNOWLEDGE
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF THE AMICUS...1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...2 ARGUMENT...4 I. MASSACHUSETTS' SATELLITE-ONLY TAX HARMS CRITICAL DBS-BASED COMPETITION IN THE MVPD MARKET A. Congress Intended DBS To Provide Meaningful Competition In The MVPD Market...6 B. A Discriminatory Tax Has A Major Impact On The Effectiveness Of DBS Competition For Massachusetts Consumers...7 C. Rural Consumers Gain Additional Benefit From DBS Availability...9 II. HARM TO DBS-BASED COMPETITION IN THE MVPD MARKET RESULTS IN HARM TO MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMERS...10 A. Harm To MVPD Competition Results In Economic Harm To All Massachusetts MVPD Customers...11 B. Harm To MVPD Competition Reduces The Diversity Of Voices Critical to A Democratic Society...13 C. Harm To MVPD Competition Will Reduce Service Improvements Delivered To Consumers...15 CONCLUSION...16
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Statutes, Cases, and Reports Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No , 106 Stat (1992)...5, 6, 11, 13 Federal Communications Comm' n, In re Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programmin g, 12th Annual Report, F.C.C (Feb. 2006)...6, 14, 15, 16 Federal Communications Comm'n, In re Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 15th Annual Report, F.C.C (July 2013)...7, 11, 13 In re Comcast Corp., 17 F.C.C.R (2002) Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc, v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)...:...13 U.S. Census Bureau, USA Quickfacts...13 U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report Tables (Mar. 2014)...11 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Direct Broadcast Satellite Subscribership Has Grown Rapidly, but Varies Across Different Types of Markets, GAO (Apr. 2005)...9, 16 Massachusetts Reports Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation, Quick Facts About Cable TV in Massachusetts...10 Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Cable, Competition Status Report (Feb. 2010)...5, 10 ii
4 Special Commission on Rural Access and Improving State-Sponsored Services. in Massachusetts Rural Communities, Report to the Great and General Court and Executive Office of the Governor (Aug. 2013) Other Authorities Austan Goolsbee & Amil Petrin, The Consumer Gains from Direct Broadcast Satellites and the Competition With Cable TV, 72 Econometrica 351 (Mar. 2004)...12 Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, A Control Function Approach to Endogeneity in Consumer Choice Models, 47 Journal of Marketing Research 3 (Feb. 2010)...8 F. M. Scherer & David Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1990)...4 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)...4 iii
5 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS Public Knowledge respectfully submits this brief in support of Plaintiffs/Appellants DIRECTV, LLC and DISH Network L.L.C. Public Knowledge is a Washington, D.C. based notfor-profit public interest advocacy and research organization. It is dedicated to protecting consumers' rights and the core democratic principles of openness, public access, and the capacity to innovate and com- Pete in the digital age.. Public Knowledge seeks to guard these cultural values at all layers of our communications systems through legislative, administrative, legal, and grass-roots efforts. The decision below has broad implications for consumer choice and costs as well as for the diversity of voices in the video services which are piped daily into more than two million Massachusetts homes. The Superior Court has provided a recipe for state legislatures to favor in-state interests at the expense of interstate commerce. If these schemes, designed to create an anticompetitive market, are permitted to continue in the face of contrary Constitutional law, the cost of favoring some Multichannel Video Program Distributors ("MVPD") over others will be paid for by 1
6 consumers, speakers, and innovators. Amicus curiae uniquely represents the interests of consumers in a proceeding which is otherwise about the interest of states versus the interest of certain video providers. Public Knowledge is not affiliated with any cable company, Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") provider, other MVPD, or party to this action.l SUNIl~lARY OF ARGUMENT Tax schemes such as the one at issue in this case raise issues of great public and general interest because they harm the competition which is critical to ensuring that MVPD consumers receive the best service and have access to the greatest diversity of voices at the lowest price. Competition in the MVPD market benefits consumers in three broad ways. First, competition in the MVPD market disciplines prices across providers, lowering costs for all subscribers to MVPD services and increasing the availability of services nationwide. Second, competition translates to diversity of voices heard by the vast majority of Massachusetts households who subscribe to multichannel services. Third, competilamicus would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Michael Weinberg, George Washington University Law School, in the preparation of this brief..
7 tion increases quality of service to multichannel custourers. DBS-based competition in particular has_ a demonstrated track record of encouraging innovation in the market, providing consumers with advanced services including better picture quality, music offerings, and Internet and telephone services. Singling out innovative distribution technologies for discriminatory taxation discourages service improvement and encourages providers to freeze existing levels of service. Finally, these benefits are felt even more strongly by rural customers, who may have no locally based MVPD option at all. Congress and the FCC have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to achieving consumer benefits _ through competition in the MVPD market. By leveling the playing field, Congress has sought to stop runaway cable pricing and to encourage innovation. To some extent, it has succeeded. But to the extent that MVPD prices still outpace inflation, the problem can be partially attributed to the discriminatory treatment of cable's primary competitor in a market where consumers, when faced with higher prices, are very likely to switch providers or leave the market entirely. 3
8 The Superior Court's decision has troubling implications not only for current MVPD competitors, but for future entrants as well. Creating an anticompetitive market by favoring some MVPD distribution technologies over others will harm consumers by restricting competition in existing video services and reducing the incentive to create new services which have not yet been imagined. We respectfully ask this Court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court and hold that the Commonwealth cannot engage in discriminatory taxation against some types of MVPDs. In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 11, Chapter 11 (1776). It is now axiomatic that competition is beneficial to consumers, both because it increases choice and because it lowers prices.z When a state acts to unconstitutionally disfavor out-of-state DBS interests in favor of in-state land-based MVPD interests, it z For a more modern, in-depth explanation of the con- Sumer benefits of competition, see F. M. Scherer & David Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1990).
9 hampers this critical competition and hurts all Massachusetts MVPD customers.a group that comprises some of the Commonwealth's households.3 I. MASSACHUSETTS' SATELLITE-ONLY TAX HARMS CRITICAL DBS-BASED COMPETITION IN THE MVPD MARKET. As Congress has long recognized, the pro-speech and pro-consumer effects of DBS-based competition are critical to the MVPD market: "There is a substantial governmental and First Amendment interest in promoting a diversity of views provided through multiple technology media," and "[w]ithout the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor, a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to 'that of consumers and video programmers." Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No , ~~ 2 (a)(2), 2 (a)(6), 106 Stat. 1460, 1460 (1992) (codified at 47 U.S.C. ~ 521 note) [hereinafter "1992 Cable Act"]. 3 Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Cable, Competition Status Report at xii (Feb. 2010) [hereinafter "Massachusetts Competition Status Report"], available at dtc/compreport/competitionreport-combined.pdf.
10 A. Congress Intended DBS To Provide Meaningful Competition In The MVPD Market. Congress has long been concerned with cable companies abusing their MVPD monopolies. See, e.g., 1992 Cable Act. With the large initial investment required to construct a cable network, cable has often been described as a natural monopoly. Although there have been attempts to diversify MVPD offerings by encouraging cable "overbuilders" (companies that construct a second cable network in communities with existing cable networks)., these services have historically experienced problems reaching financial stability and economies of scale. See Federal Communications Comm'n, In re Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 12th Annual Report at 47-48, F.C.C (Feb. 2006) [hereinafter "2006 FCC Annual Report"]. Unlike overbuilders, who must construct large networks~in every market before they can begin to compete, DBS services can quickly and easily distribute equipment to begin competing in a given market. This ease of entry into new markets provides a much-needed check on cable's monopoly power. See id. at 4, 7. C.~
11 In recent years, online video distribution ("OVD") providers like Netflix have gained prevalence in the marketplace. But they also face significant competitive barriers, including the costs of "content acquisition and [their] ability to access sufficient Internet capacity to provide customers with a highquality OVD viewing experience." Federal Communicabons Comm'n, In re Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video, 15th Annual Report at 124, F.C.C (July 2013) [hereinafter "2013 FCC Annual Report"] OVD providers, too, must invest heavily in hardware and software to compete against MVPD providers. Id. at 152. Although an important part of the marketplace, it is clear that OVD is not yet an adequate substitute for cable - and that DBS providers are still the most important guard against a cable monopoly. B. A Discriminatory Tax Has A Major Impact On The Effectiveness Of DBS Competition For Massachusetts Consumers. Consumers in the MVPD market are price-sensitive, meaning that small increases in the price of one providers' service will produce comparatively large shifts of consumers away from that provider, often to competitors. As a result, differential taxation di- 7
12 rectly impacts competition and harms all of the goals discussed below. There is no question that cable operators and DBS providers are direct competitors, and the relative cost of service is a key factor in consumers' buying decisions. When the cost of DBS rises just lo, con- Sumer demand for that service falls precipitously - by more than Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, A Control Function Approach to Endogeneity in Consumer Choice Models, 47 Journal of Marketing Research 3, 12 tbl. 4 (Feb. 2010), available at htt.p:// ~petrin/papers/petrin_train_jmr.pdf. Significantly, the MVPD market has high cross-elasticity, meaning that an increase in the cost of DBS not only reduces demand that service, it also drives customers to competing cable operators. One study reports that a to increase in the cost of DBS service increases demand for cable service by nearly Id. Thus, a multiple-percentage point tax imposed only on DBS discourages tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents from choosing DBS, and persuades them to choose cable instead. The type of cost.changes imposed on DBS by the Massachusetts tax is likely to produce a drastic effect '3
13 on competition. This directly impacts Massachusetts consumers, increasing overall prices paid and reducing quality of service and the diversity of voices on the airwaves. C. Rural Consumers Gain Additional Benefit From DBS Availability. More than 100 of Massachusetts families live in rural areas. See Special.Commission on Rural Access and Improving State-Sponsored Services in Massachusetts Rural Communities, Report to the Great and General Court and Executive Office of the Governor at 5 (Aug. 2013), available at docs/eohhs/rural-services-commission-report.pdf. In addition to broadly competing with cable, DBS has a much higher adoption rate in rural areas. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Direct Broadcast Satellite Subscribership Has Grown Rapidly, but Varies Across Different Types of Markets at 3, 7, GAO (Apr. 2005) [hereinafter "GAO Report"], available at http: // In areas where no cable service is available at all (which are often rural), DBS adoption rates are 53o higher. Id. at 9. Notably, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Regulation reports that 120 (43 of 351) of the ~:]
14 Commonwealth's cities and towns are not wired for cable, meaning that 58,000 Massachusetts households cannot subscribe to cable.4 For these households - for which obtaining service from a DBS provider is the only practical or actual choice discriminatory tax schemes will directly translate to an increase in con- Sumer costs, driving a significant fraction of consumers out of the market altogether and producing higher prices for the rest. Further, any harm to DBS in markets that have cable as well will be visited more powerfully on rural customers, who do not have the benefit of a state-preferred option available. II. HARM TO DBS-BASED COMPETITION IN THE MVPD MARKET RESULTS IN HARM TO MASSACHUSETTS CON- SUMERS. The benefits of competition in the MVPD market are realized by consumers in three ways: First, competition between MVPDs reins in prices for all MVPDs. Second, it encourages MVPDs to diversify their offerings, resulting in a broader diversity of speech being available to consumers. Finally, competition drives 4 Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation, Quick Facts About Cable TV in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Competition Status Report at xi. ~[i7
15 both the creation of new, innovative MVPD offerings and an increase in quality of existing services. When a state's tax scheme harms competition from DBS, it also hurts consumers in all three areas. A. Harm to MVPD Competition Results In Economic Harm To All Massachusetts MVPD Customers. Congress intended for DBS entry to provide meaningful price constraints in an otherwise monopolistic MVPD market. See 1992 Cable Act, ~ 19. It has been partially successful, although current levels of competition have not been enough to completely discipline pricing. In a recent report on competition in the video programming market, the FCC reported that despite technological improvements in video delivery, prices in the MVPD market continue to outpace the general level of inflation FCC Annual Report at 58.5 Competition from DBS, however, has had the effect of constraining the price increases from incumbent providers, preventing them from rising even higher SInflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, during the reported.period ( ) increased between 2. 1 o and See U. S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report Tables, at tbl. 24 (Mar. 2014), available at cpi/cpid1403.pdf. The cost of basic MVPD service, by contrast, increased by 6.20 on average FCC Annual Report at
16 than they have to date. One study concluded that without DBS's entry into the market, cable prices would be 15o higher. Austan Goolsbee & Amil Petrin, The Consumer Gains from Direct Broadcast Satellites and the Competition With Cable TV, 72 Econometrica 351, 373 (Mar. 2004). Especially given the price sensitivity of MVPD customers, differential treatment of DBS and cable services in Massachusetts and other states could account for DBS's failure to fully control cable price increases despite its positive effect on other areas, including network availability, picture quality, and overall innovation. In the same way that competition lowers prices for consumers, reduced competition raises them. If allowed to proceed unchecked, discriminatory taxing will raise prices not just for DBS users, but for all MVPD subscribers. This results not just in DBS customers paying higher prices (as is the case with all taxes), but in increased prices for MVPD services used and paid for by the vast majority of Massachusetts residents. 12
17 B. Harm To MVPD Competition Reduces The Diversity of Voices Critical To A Democratic Society. As Congress has recognized, "[t]here is a. substantial... First Amendment interest in promoting a diversity of views provided through multiple technology media." 1992 Cable Act, ~ 2(a)(6). The Supreme Court of the United States has also recognized this Constitutional interest: "[A]ssuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental. purpose of the highest order, for it promotes values central to the First Amendment." Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994). The FCC, too, has echoed the Supreme Court's observation that "[i]t has long been a basic tenet of national communications policy that `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."' In re Comcast Corp., 17 F.C.C.R , 9I 27 (2002) (quoting Turner Broadcasting Sys., 512 U.S. at 663). As of June 2012, there were 101 million households in the United States that subscribed to an MVPD service FCC Annual Report at 4. According to the Census Bureau, there are roughly 115 million house- 13
18 holds in the United States. See U.S. Census Bureau, USA Quickfacts, states/ooooo.html. Because so many households subscribe to an MVPD service, it is unsurprising that Americans watch more than 35 hours of television every week, on average. See 2013 FCC Annual Report at 62. In Massachusetts today, the delivery of video services to homes is much more than an entertainment business. It is a primary speech outlet one through which Massachusetts households collectively view billions of hours of television-based speech per year. The current diversity of voices on this communications channel is the product, in part, of DBS's key role in promoting consumer choice. As the FCC has found, "Competition in the delivery of video programming services has provided consumers with increased choice... In particular, the effect of DBS competi- Lion has resulted in the addition of networks to cable operators' channel line ups..." 2006 FCC Annual Report at 4. DBS's nationwide structure also allows it to provide a wider variety of options than 1oca1 cable franchises can. For instance, while foreignlanguage programming may not be economically viable in a given cable market, DBS can aggregate the demand 14
19 for it nationwide and offer it to consumers in every market across the United States. When a state grants some MVPDs preferential tax treatment, it not only raises prices for consumers, it also reduces the diversity of voices and speech venues available to all Massachusetts residents. C. Harm To MVPD Competition Will Reduce Service Improvements Delivered To Consumers. In addition to delivering more diverse voices and lowering prices, the FCC has noted that MVPD competition provided consumers with "better picture quality[] and greater technological innovation." 2006 FCC Annual Report at 4. Specifically, the competition of DBS providers encouraged cable operators to make investments that enable "more channels of basic and digital cable services, premium movie services, pay-per-view service, high-definition service, high-speed Internet access services, CD-quality music, cable telephony, and more personalized programming options." Id. at 22. The FCC attributed these new services in large part to competition from DBS; and in response to cable's new services, DBS providers have expanded their own offerings: "Cable operators have responded to the growth of DBS and its competitive service offerings 15
20 by, among other things, expanding their channel line ups and bundling video service with other service offerings, such as cable modem service or telephone service... These competitive efforts are matched by DBS operators' offering of local broadcast channels, additional sports and international programming, and advanced set-top boxes with digital video recorder (DVR) capabilities." 2006 FCC Annual- Report at 4. This continual upgrading of services is emblematic of the benefits of competition. The Government Accountability Office also reports that DBS penetration is 20o higher in places where cable is not offering these advanced services, suggesting that DBS's presence forces cable to offer customers improved services in order to compete. GAO Report at 9. Taxes that disproportionately burden DBS to the benefit of cable will allow incumbents to slow or cease these innovations, as they will be unnecessary for cable to compete in the marketplace. CONCLUSION For these reasons, amicus therefore requests that the Court reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and hold that the satellite-only tax violates the Commerce Clause. 16
21 Respectfully Submitted, John ~e~'gmayer Senior Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW, Suite 410 Washington, D.C (202) Karen A. Pickett (BBO #633801) Pickett Law Offices, P.C. 22 Batterymarch St., 4th Floor Boston, Massachusetts (617) COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE Public Knowledge Dated: April 28,
22 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the rules of court that pertain to the filing of amicus briefs, including but not limited to: Mass.R.App.P. 17 (amicus briefs) and Mass.R.App.P. 20 (form of briefs, appendices and other papers). ~ f _. 7 ~/~ J ~7 ~ ~ ~~`: IN W'~ '~c~ F :11~1/~L~~ Karen'~~1. Pickett
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Comments of WTA Advocates for Rural Broadband
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission s Rules CS Docket No. 98-120
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Statistical Report
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Statistical Report
More informationREPLY COMMENTS OF THE STAFF OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION(1)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Before the Copyright Office, Library of Congress Washington, D. C. In re Satellite Carrier Compulsory License; Definition of Unserved
More informationCRS Report for Congress
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21775 Updated April 5, 2004 Cable Television: Background and Overview of Rates and Other Issues for Congress Summary Justin Murray Information
More informationTestimony of. Mr. Daniel Fawcett. Executive Vice President DIRECTV November 14, 2006
Testimony of Mr. Daniel Fawcett Executive Vice President DIRECTV November 14, 2006 Written Testimony Daniel M. Fawcett Executive Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs and Programming Acquisition DIRECTV,
More informationSn toe ~upreme ~ourt o[ toe ~lniteb ~tate~
No. 09-901 FEB 2 6 2010 : Sn toe ~upreme ~ourt o[ toe ~lniteb ~tate~ CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents On Petition
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Amendment to the Commission s Rules Concerning Effective Competition Implementation of Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization
More informationMortgages and Forced Programming in the MVPD Market
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) MM Docket 07-269 Annual Assessment of the Status of ) Competition in the Market for the ) Delivery of Video Programming
More informationSubscription Television in Australia. Kim Williams, CEO FOXTEL July 2002
Subscription Television in Australia Kim Williams, CEO FOXTEL July 2002 2/08/02 2 Major Differences Between the US and Australia US is mature with profitable open broadcasters and subscription broadcasters.
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Time Warner Cable Inc. Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in Cheshire, MA CSR 7233-E MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationCITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE In Re: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Application FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Following the submission of an application for a cable television
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Promoting Innovation and Competition in the ) MB Docket No. 14-261 Provision of Multichannel Video Programming ) Distribution
More informationPosition Statement on Cable Television Regulation in Maine. Submitted by New England Cable and Telecommunications Association ( NECTA ) June 2009
Position Statement on Cable Television Regulation in Maine Submitted by New England Cable and Telecommunications Association ( NECTA ) June 2009 NECTA is a nonprofit corporation and trade association that
More informationHow To Respond To A Cable Tv Market Study In New York City
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 Delivery of Video Programming MB Docket No. 07-269
More informationCable Television in the United States: Trends and Challenges Commissioner Kevin J. Martin Federal Communications Commission August 26, 2004 Beijing,
Cable Television in the United States: Trends and Challenges Commissioner Kevin J. Martin Federal Communications Commission August 26, 2004 Beijing, China 1 The Federal Communications Commission Created
More informationBefore the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. ) ) ) COMMENTS OF DISH NETWORK L.L.C.
Before the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Washington, D.C. Notice of Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review And Approval ) ) ) OMB Control No. 3060-0761 To: Nicholas Fraser
More informationLet the Free Market Work and Reject Government Intervention In the Local Television Market
Let the Free Market Work and Reject Government Intervention In the Local Television Market Cable s Monopoly May be Broken But the System Isn t From 1992 until the mid-2000s, cable companies were the only
More informationGlobal Forum on Competition
Unclassified DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2013)49 DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2013)49 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 11-Feb-2013 English
More informationFILED 3-01-16 04:59 PM
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the matter of Joint Application of Charter Communications, Inc.; Charter Fiberlink CACCO, LLC (U6878C); Time Warner Cable Inc.; Time
More informationTestimony of Gene Kimmelman President and CEO Public Knowledge. Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Testimony of Gene Kimmelman President and CEO Public Knowledge Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing On: At a Tipping Point: Consumer Choice, Consolidation
More informationTestimony of. Mr. Garry Betty. April 23, 2002
Testimony of Mr. Garry Betty April 23, 2002 Introduction Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to testify today about the proposed merger between AT&T and Comcast and its potential impact on competition
More informationGAO. TELECOMMUNICATIONS Data Gathering Weaknesses In FCC s Survey Of Information on Factors Underlying Cable Rate Changes
GAO United States General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT Tuesday, May 6, 2003 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-1524 In the Supreme Court of the United States DIRECTV, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, RICHARD H. ROBERTS, TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. Washington, D.C. 20554
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of THE PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE VIA "CABLE INTERNET" UNITED STATES INTERNET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ("USIIA"),
More informationAt a Tipping Point: Consumer Choice, Consolidation and the Future Video Marketplace. July 16, 2014
Testimony of Jeffrey H. Blum Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH Network L.L.C. before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation At a Tipping Point: Consumer Choice,
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: Cable Subscribership Survey ) ) For the Collection of Information ) Pursuant to Section 612(g) of the ) MB Docket No. 07-269 Communications
More informationSTATEMENT OF ROSS J. LIEBERMAN SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF ROSS J. LIEBERMAN SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM, COMMERCIAL AND ANTITRUST LAW COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
More informationVIDEO MARKETPLACE. Competition Is Evolving, and Government Reporting Should Be Reevaluated
United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Acting Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission June 2013 VIDEO MARKETPLACE Competition Is Evolving, and Government Reporting Should
More informationSTAFF REPORT. September 2, 2014. Honorable Mayor & City Council. David Schirmer, Chief Information Officer Mark Geddes, Multimedia Manager
STAFF REPORT Meeting Date To: From: Subject: Attachments: September 2, 2014 Honorable Mayor & City Council David Schirmer, Chief Information Officer Mark Geddes, Multimedia Manager Request by Councilmember
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the ) MB Docket No. 05-311 Cable Communication Policy Act of 1984 ) as amended
More informationEXPECTED CONSUMER BENEFITS FROM WIRED VIDEO COMPETITION IN CALIFORNIA. Yale M. Braunstein 1 School of Information University of California, Berkeley
EXPECTED CONSUMER BENEFITS FROM WIRED VIDEO COMPETITION IN CALIFORNIA by Yale M. Braunstein 1 School of Information University of California, Berkeley Introduction Cable television is the dominant means
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FILE NOS. K13-R-31, K13-R-32 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FILE NOS. K13-R-31, K13-R-32 NETFLIX, INC. APPELLANT V. ORDER NO. K-24900 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE APPELLEE An evidentiary
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling of ) American Electric Power Service ) Corporation et al. Regarding the ) Rate
More informationComcast/Time Warner Cable: Potential Competitive Harms Significant Despite Lack of Geographic Overlap; Public Outcry May Motivate Robust Review
The Capitol Forum February 14, 2014 Comcast/Time Warner Cable: Potential Competitive Harms Significant Despite Lack of Geographic Overlap; Public Outcry May Motivate Robust Review Conclusion Comcast, the
More informationTHE FCC S RESPONSE TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. V. AEREO, INC.
THE FCC S RESPONSE TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. V. AEREO, INC. February 20, 2015 Intellectual Property Litigation in Texas: Video Games, Damages, Patents and the Supreme Court Presented by
More informationSTATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. POLKA PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. POLKA PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY REFORM, COMMERCIAL AND ANTITRUST LAW COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED
More informationTestimony of. Mr. Gene Kimmelman. March 6, 2002
Testimony of Mr. Gene Kimmelman March 6, 2002 Consumers Union is extremely concerned about the enormous concentration of control over multichannel video distribution systems - predominantly cable and satellite
More informationMassillon Cable TV and a Short Term Extension Request
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: Massillon Cable TV Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability of Navigation
More informationThis approach is, I think, fully justified by the record and experience of the cable industry.
Cable Freedom Remarks by Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) To The Media Institute Washington, DC June 22, 2005 I thought today I would briefly provide
More informationProf. Dawn Nunziato The George Washington University Law School
Workable Remedies for Search Engine Bias: From Net Neutrality Regulation to Search Neutrality Regulation? Prof. Dawn Nunziato The George Washington University Law School May 16, 2012 HENRY G. MANNE PROGRAM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 450 5th Street, N.W., Suite 7000 Washington, DC 20530 and STATE OF NEW YORK,
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission s Rules CS Docket No. 98-120
More informationConsumer Video Choice Coalition Urges FCC Action to Preserve Competition in Video Device Market
Consumer Video Choice Coalition Urges FCC Action to Preserve Competition in Video Device Market August 21, 2015 The Consumer Video Choice Coalition today responded to the FCC s request for comment on the
More informationIt s All Interconnected.
Excerpt from: It s All Interconnected. http://newnetworks.com/verizonfiostitle2/ Contact: Bruce Kushnick bruce@newnetworks.com Part XIII SPECIAL SECTION: Time Warner and the Social Contract 13.0 The Social
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) CSR 5395-E ) MediaOne of Massachusetts ) Arlington, MA MA0115 ) Newton, MA MA0117 Petition for Determination of )
More informationFCC ACTS TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS Action Helps Ensure Robust Internet for Consumers, Innovation, Investment, Economic Prosperity
FCC ACTS TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS Action Helps Ensure Robust Internet for Consumers, Innovation, Investment, Economic Prosperity Washington, D.C. The Federal Communications Commission
More informationWhy Cable and Satellite TV?
Why Cable and Satellite TV? Information good Industry operates almost exclusively on a domestic basis Highly concentrated Myriad of pricing strategies Why Cable and Satellite TV? 2011 industry revenue
More information14.23 Government Regulation of Industry
14.23 Government Regulation of Industry Class 8: Franchise Bidding and CATV MIT & University of Cambridge 1 Outline Why regulate utilities? Franchising benefits Contractual problems CATV (community-antenna
More informationHow To Price Bundle On Cable Television
K. Bundling Brown and in Cable P. J. Alexander Television Bundling in Cable Television: A Pedagogical Note With a Policy Option Keith Brown and Peter J. Alexander Federal Communications Commission, USA
More informationTestimony of James Campbell Regional Vice President, Public Policy CenturyLink
Testimony of James Campbell Regional Vice President, Public Policy CenturyLink before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, Committee on the Judiciary United States House
More informationReality. Myth. OTT is highly cannibalistic of traditional TV. Only somewhat. OTT TV Myth #3: OTT Is Highly Cannibalistic of Traditional TV
OTT TV Myth #3: OTT Is Highly Cannibalistic of Traditional TV Alarmist statements abound regarding the predatory nature of over-the-top (OTT) and how it is poaching traditional TV viewers. Myth Reality
More informationVideo Streaming Licenses and Franchising Law
Introduction This is the sixth in a series of white papers issued by the committee in its process of reviewing the Communications Act for update. This paper focuses on regulation of the market for video
More informationReal Competition? Proposed Deregulation of Local Telephone Service in Illinois
Real Competition? Proposed Deregulation of Local Telephone Service in Illinois Introduction Shirley T. Chiu Student Fellow, Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies Loyola University Chicago School of
More informationFOURTH ANNUAL REPORT. Adopted: December 31, 1997 Released: January 13, 1998
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of ) CS Docket No. 97-141 Competition in Markets for the ) Delivery of Video Programming
More informationRECEIVED SUS -7 AH!!: 37. MFENKNT HEGOWDm. July 31,2008
^A5^/ Suzan DeBusk Paiva Assistant General Counsel Pennsylvania RECEIVED SUS -7 AH!!: 37 MFENKNT HEGOWDm verizon 1717 Arch Street, 10W Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215)466-4755 Fax:(215)563-2658 Suzan.D.Paiva@Verizon.com
More informationHOW TO GET A GREAT TV DEAL 6 WAYS TO EXTEND YOUR WIFI
PackagesCompared www.packagescompared.net FREE INDEPENDENT ADVICE SPRING EDITION PackagesCompared HOW TO GET A GREAT TV DEAL 6 WAYS TO EXTEND YOUR WIFI WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT TELEVISION? WHERE WOULD
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 INTRODUCTION
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Contributions to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund CG Docket No. 11-47 REPLY COMMENTS OF CITRIX ONLINE LLC
More informationOrganization: ivi, Inc. Submitter: Todd Weaver Title: Founder & CEO. ivi, Inc. Comments on the Proposed Compulsory License Phase-Out
ivi, Inc. Comments on the Proposed Compulsory License Phase-Out A. Introduction ivi, Inc. is an IP-based cable television company delivering television channels to its subscribers in an encrypted format
More informationTestimony of. David L. Donovan President, New York State Broadcasters Association. Before the
Testimony of David L. Donovan President, New York State Broadcasters Association Before the New York City Council Committee on Consumer Affairs and the Subcommittee On Zoning and Franchises Oversight:
More informationJanuary 23, 2015. United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C.
January 23, 2015 United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Delivered by email to: commactupdate@mail.house.gov Dear
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Universal Service Contribution Methodology ) WC Dkt. No. 06-122 ) ) COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE SCOTTSBORO ELECTRIC POWER BOARD
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 Delivery of Video Programming ) ) ) ) ) CS Docket
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming MB Docket No. 15-158
More informationTHE FAILURE OF INTERMODAL COMPETITION IN CABLE MARKETS. Dr. Mark Cooper. Research Director Consumer Federation of America
THE FAILURE OF INTERMODAL COMPETITION IN CABLE MARKETS Dr. Mark Cooper Research Director Consumer Federation of America April 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Cross Technology Competition is
More informationState Tax Return. Go Crazy, Folks... But Not Too Crazy: 1 California Court Ponders Remedy For Macy's Victory Over San Francisco
November 2006 Volume 13 Number 11 State Tax Return Go Crazy, Folks... But Not Too Crazy: 1 California Court Ponders Remedy For Macy's Victory Over San Francisco Rachel Wilson Dallas (214) 969-5050 A taxpayer
More informationTESTIMONY OF JEFFREY BLUM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL DISH NETWORK L.L.C. before the UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE June 10, 2011
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY BLUM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL DISH NETWORK L.L.C. before the UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE June 10, 2011 Ms. Pallante and staff members of the U.S. Copyright
More informationChairman Bachus, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the subcommittee, my
Testimony of Michael White President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer DIRECTV before the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and
More informationGAO. Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry TELECOMMUNICATIONS
GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate October 2003 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Issues Related to Competition and Subscriber
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 304 of the CS Docket No. 97-80 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Commercial Availability of Navigation
More informationSatellite TV s Position on Communications Tax Reform Andrew Reinsdorf
Satellite TV s Position on Communications Tax Reform Andrew Reinsdorf Sr. Vice President, DIRECTV Maryland Tax Study Commission Three Key Points Satellite TV is innovative and different. Franchise fees
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) ) ) ) ) )
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Requiring Cable and Satellite Systems to File Their Physical Public Files in the FCC-Hosted Online Database PETITION FOR
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No. 07-29 Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Development
More informationNEW UNBUNDLING RULES: WILL THE FCC FINALLY OPEN UP CABLE BROADBAND?
NEW UNBUNDLING RULES: WILL THE FCC FINALLY OPEN UP CABLE BROADBAND? This ibrief discusses a recent Court of Appeals decision remanding FCC rules on the unbundling of Internet services by telephone exchange
More informationCable Industry Analysis. Team Peloton: Steve Corley Marty Taylor Jason Shaub Bala Selvakrishnan Kal Patel
Cable Industry Analysis Team Peloton: Steve Corley Marty Taylor Jason Shaub Bala Selvakrishnan Kal Patel Objective & Background To give an overview of the cable industry. Illustrate the capital intensive
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization ) ) Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for
More informationPlease find attached the comments of ITI in the Broadband Opportunity Council Notice and Request for Comment.
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Jesaitis, Vince BOCrfc2015 Broadband Opportunity Council Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:11:49 PM NTIA_RUS_BBCouncil_10June2015.pdf Please find attached the comments of
More informationThe Honorable Charlie Crist State of Florida PL-O5 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
The Honorable Charlie Crist State of Florida PL-O5 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Re: House Bill 529, Cable Franchising Legislation Dear Governor Crist: We are writing today as the largest consumer
More informationCase 1:14-cv-01823 Document 1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-01823 Document 1 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULLTEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0201p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DIRECTV, INC. and ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L.L.C., PlaintiffsAppellants,
More informationFCC Officially Launches OVD Definition NPRM Broadcastin...
FCC Officially Launches OVD Definition NPRM Broadcasting & Cable broadcastingcable.com (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-officiallylaunches-ovd-definition-nprm/136544) by John Eggerton
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) High-Cost Universal Service Support ) WC Docket No. 05-337 ) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC
More informationBILL DRAFT 2005-RBxz-36B: Video Service Competition Act
BILL DRAFT 2005-RBxz-36B: Video Service Competition Act BILL ANALYSIS Committee: Revenue Laws Study Committee Date: May 2, 2006 Introduced by: Summary by: Cindy Avrette Version: Draft Committee Counsel
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Closed Captioning of Video Programming: Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking
More informationTelephone Service: A Natural Monopoly?
Box 6-2 continued By June 2003, this had grown to 88 percent. A recent study indicates that the introduction of satellite TV led to substantial gains for consumers. However, ongoing antitrust oversight
More informationAT&T Billing Glossary
# A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z # 411 An information/directory Assistance service provided by operators who assist customers in obtaining the telephone number(s) they wish to call.
More informationWRITTEN STATEMENT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OF AT&T SERVICES INC.
Before the COPYRIGHT OFFICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) Section 109 Report to Congress Docket No. 2007-1 WRITTEN STATEMENT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OF AT&T SERVICES
More informationa GAO-03-130 GAO Issues in Providing Cable and Satellite Television Services TELECOMMUNICATIONS
GAO October 2002 United States General Accounting Office Report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and Consumer Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate TELECOMMUNICATIONS
More informationCASE X: VERTICAL MERGERS IN THE VIDEO PROGRAMMING AND DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY: THE CASE OF COMCAST-NBCU. William P. Rogerson* **
CASE X: VERTICAL MERGERS IN THE VIDEO PROGRAMMING AND DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY: THE CASE OF COMCAST-NBCU by William P. Rogerson* ** * The author consulted for the American Cable Association (ACA) on this
More informationComments for the Record Reply Comments on the Comcast- Time Warner Cable Merger DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, WILL RINEHART SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Introduction As noted previously, the Comcast-Time Warner Cable (TWC)
More informationCharges for Video Service
State of Wisconsin Letter Report Charges for Video Service December 2009 Legislative Audit Bureau 22 E. Mifflin St., Ste. 500, Madison, Wisconsin 53703-4225 (608) 266-2818 Fax: (608) 267-0410 Web site:
More informationSTATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION STAFF LEGISLATIVE BILL ANALYSIS
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION STAFF LEGISLATIVE BILL ANALYSIS Date Amended: 03/23/11 Bill No: Senate Bill 530 Tax Program: Satellite TV Author: Wright Sponsor: Author Code Sections: Part 14.5 (commencing
More informationLOCAL MEDIA ADVERTISING
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2016 LOCAL MEDIA ADVERTISING FCC Should Take Action to Ensure Television Stations Publicly File Advertising Agreements
More informationVertical Foreclosure in Video Programming Markets: Implications for Cable Operators. Abstract
Vertical Foreclosure in Video Programming Markets: Implications for Cable Operators HAL J. SINGER * Criterion Economics, L.L.C. J. GREGORY SIDAK Georgetown University Law Center Abstract This paper argues
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services MB Docket
More informationTestimony of. R. Stanton Dodge Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of DISH Network L.L.C. Satellite Video 101. Before the
Testimony of R. Stanton Dodge Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of DISH Network L.L.C. On Satellite Video 101 Before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
More informationTestimony of Gene Kimmelman President and CEO Public Knowledge. Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Testimony of Gene Kimmelman President and CEO Public Knowledge Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing On: Examining the Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger and the Impact on Consumers Washington,
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Preserving the Open Internet ) ) Broadband Industry Practices ) ) REPLY COMMENTS I. Introduction. The American
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the Commission s Rules ) RM 11728 Governing Practices of Video Programming Vendors
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services MB Docket
More information