Jump to content

Multichannel television in the United States: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 13: Line 13:
{{main|Direct-broadcast satellite}}
{{main|Direct-broadcast satellite}}


In 1979, [[COMSAT]] announced a plan to allow viewers to receive programming directly from broadcast satellites, a concept called [[Direct-broadcast satellite]] or DBS. This would cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" and, at the time, the system was expected to be ready by the 1990s. Later, the company changed its target date to 1986. By 1983, the FCC had authorized several other companies to offer DBS service. These included [[CBS]], [[RCA]] and [[Western Union]], as well as [[Rupert Murdoch]]-led Skyband. Unlike the [[Television receive-only|big dishes]], DBS used higher-powered satellites with smaller, more affordable dishes 2 to 3 feet wide.<ref name=Future/>
The first direct-broadcast satellite TV in the United States was available from United Satellite Communications Inc. (USCI) in the [[Eastern United States|East]] and [[Midwestern United States|Midwest]]. Subscribers paid for five channels and used a dish a [[meter]] wide.<ref name=Wichita/><ref>{{cite news|title=Direct-Broadcast TV Is Still Not Turned On|last=Wolf|first=Ron|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-01-20|page=C01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Satellite TV Service Goes Off the Air|last=Wolf|first=Ron|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-04-02|page=E08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Problems of Satellite-TV Service Leave Viewers with Empty Dishes|last=Stecklow|first=Steve|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-04-28|page=M11}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Problems of Satellite-TV Service Leave Viewers with Empty Dishes|last=Stecklow|first=Steve|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-09-30|page=P10}}</ref>

On November 16, 1983, the first DBS service, with 50 customers paying $39.95 a month for five channels in the [[Indianapolis]] area]], was launched by United Satellite Communications Inc. (USCI), a [[joint venture]] of [[Prudential Financial|Prudential Insurance]], [[General Instrument]], and investors that included Francesco Galesi. USCI and Skyband did not wait for more powerful satellite technology, but instead used the existing satellite technology. The company also signed an agreement with [[ESPN]] and made programming arrangements with distributors rather than existing cable channels. USCI also had two movie channels. While cable could provide more channels at a cheaper rate, cable was too expensive to offer in rural areas. Also, cable was not yet available in such large cities as [Philadelphia]] and [[Chicago]]. USCI president Nathaniel Kwit said 30 million people would never be served by cable companies, and DBS would have 5 million subscrtibers by 1990.<ref name=Future>{{cite news|title=Satellite Television: The Future Is Now|last=Wolf|first=Ron|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1983-11-22|page=D01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=New Service Offers Stations Via Satellite, No Cable Necessary|last=Stecklow|first=Steve|work=The Philadelphia Inquirer|date=1984-05-06|page=P09}}</ref> One prediction for USCI was for 2.4 million customers by 1986.<ref name=Borowski>{{cite news|title=Defunct Pay-TV Firm May Abandon Antennas|last=Borowski|first=Neill|work=The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1983-12-18|page=C10}}</ref>

However, of the eight original companies planning DBS service, none had a working system by the start of 1985. The expected cost of entering the market ranged from $200 to $500 million, with $100 million required to put a satellite in orbit. Only Direct Broadcast Satellite Corp., United States Satellite Broadcasting and Dominion Satellite Network still had plans to go ahead, while RCA was looking at changes in its system. Even USCI, which used a Canadian satellite that did not require FCC approval to use, was in trouble. With little success in Indiana, USCI began looking to [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Baltimore]] and Philadelphia. USCI had the capability to serve 52 percent of people in the United States but after a year, USCI had only 11,000 customers. The company's inability to get such channels as [[CNN]], along with a monthly cost of at least $24.95, in addition to the $700 for the receiver needed to pick up a still-weak signal, kept the numbers low.<ref>{{cite news|title=Direct-Broadcast TV Is Still Not Turned On|last=Wolf|first=Ron|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-01-20|page=C01}}</ref> Another problem was that [HBO]] and other channels used C-band while USCI was Ku-band.<ref name=Borowski/> But USCI neded a great deal more money and began looking at possible mergers. The company could not afford to expand and no deals had been been made with other companies, so service ended with no warning on April 1, 1985.<ref>{{cite news|title=Satellite TV Service Goes Off the Air|last=Wolf|first=Ron|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-04-02|page=E08}}</ref> USCI filed for bankruptcy, and one company offered to convert USCI dishes to C-band.<ref>{{cite news|title=Problems of Satellite-TV Service Leave Viewers with Empty Dishes|last=Stecklow|first=Steve|work=The Philadelphia Inquirer|date=1985-04-28|page=M11}}</ref> People were allowed to keep their dishes; half had bought them and half had leased them, but it was unclear who would provide the service, if anyone.<ref name=Borowski/>

<ref>{{cite news|title=Change Is Near for Satellite Service|last=Stecklow|first=Steve|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=1985-09-30|page=P10}}</ref>


In 1992, nearly all MVPD customers had cable.<ref name=Chairman/>
In 1992, nearly all MVPD customers had cable.<ref name=Chairman/>

Revision as of 20:23, 4 April 2014

In the United States, a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) is a service provider delivering video programming services, usually for a subscription fee (pay TV). These operators include cable television (CATV) systems, direct-broadcast satellite (DBS) providers, and wireline video providers including Verizon FiOS as well as AT&T U-verse and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) using IPTV.

Section 602 (13) of The Communications Act of 1934 (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) defines an MVPD as

a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.[1]

Big dishes

Main article: Television receive-only

In 1979, almost no one had a home satellite dish. On October 18, 1979, the FCC began allowing people to have home satellite earth stations without a federal government license. Originally, the receivers, 8 to 12 feet wide and made of fiberglass or aluminum mesh, cost more than $5000. The wider the dish, the better the reception. Programming sent from ground stations was relayed from 16 satellites in geostationary orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth. The dish had to be pointed directly at the satellite sending the signal, and the farther the signal had to travel, the wider the dish had to be. The price soon dropped, with some dishes costing as little as $2000 by 1984.[2] Dishes pointing to one satellite were even cheaper.[3] Once a user paid for a dish, it was possible to see even premium movie channels, or news broadcasts that had not been prepared, or TV stations from other areas. People in areas without local broadcast stations, and people in areas without cable TV, could have good-quality reception with no monthly fees. By 1984, a quarter-million dishes were in use. HBO and other services were considering scrambling so people would have to pay them.[2]

Direct broadcast from satellite, or DBS, became the only option for people who could not get cable. It was test marketed in several areas including Indianapolis. But its growth potential was significant since cable lines in rural areas cost a lot of money. The two types were low-power C-Band service with large dishes, and high-power KU-band.[4] On November 1, 1988, NBC began scrambling its C-band signal but not its KU-band signal so affiliates would not lose viewers who could not see their advertising. Most of the 2 million dish users in the United States still used C-band. ABC and CBS were considering scrambling, though CBS was reluctant due to the number of people unable to receive local network affiliates.[5]

Growth of satellite

Main article: Direct-broadcast satellite

In 1979, COMSAT announced a plan to allow viewers to receive programming directly from broadcast satellites, a concept called Direct-broadcast satellite or DBS. This would cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" and, at the time, the system was expected to be ready by the 1990s. Later, the company changed its target date to 1986. By 1983, the FCC had authorized several other companies to offer DBS service. These included CBS, RCA and Western Union, as well as Rupert Murdoch-led Skyband. Unlike the big dishes, DBS used higher-powered satellites with smaller, more affordable dishes 2 to 3 feet wide.[6]

On November 16, 1983, the first DBS service, with 50 customers paying $39.95 a month for five channels in the Indianapolis area]], was launched by United Satellite Communications Inc. (USCI), a joint venture of Prudential Insurance, General Instrument, and investors that included Francesco Galesi. USCI and Skyband did not wait for more powerful satellite technology, but instead used the existing satellite technology. The company also signed an agreement with ESPN and made programming arrangements with distributors rather than existing cable channels. USCI also had two movie channels. While cable could provide more channels at a cheaper rate, cable was too expensive to offer in rural areas. Also, cable was not yet available in such large cities as [Philadelphia]] and Chicago. USCI president Nathaniel Kwit said 30 million people would never be served by cable companies, and DBS would have 5 million subscrtibers by 1990.[6][7] One prediction for USCI was for 2.4 million customers by 1986.[8]

However, of the eight original companies planning DBS service, none had a working system by the start of 1985. The expected cost of entering the market ranged from $200 to $500 million, with $100 million required to put a satellite in orbit. Only Direct Broadcast Satellite Corp., United States Satellite Broadcasting and Dominion Satellite Network still had plans to go ahead, while RCA was looking at changes in its system. Even USCI, which used a Canadian satellite that did not require FCC approval to use, was in trouble. With little success in Indiana, USCI began looking to Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Philadelphia. USCI had the capability to serve 52 percent of people in the United States but after a year, USCI had only 11,000 customers. The company's inability to get such channels as CNN, along with a monthly cost of at least $24.95, in addition to the $700 for the receiver needed to pick up a still-weak signal, kept the numbers low.[9] Another problem was that [HBO]] and other channels used C-band while USCI was Ku-band.[8] But USCI neded a great deal more money and began looking at possible mergers. The company could not afford to expand and no deals had been been made with other companies, so service ended with no warning on April 1, 1985.[10] USCI filed for bankruptcy, and one company offered to convert USCI dishes to C-band.[11] People were allowed to keep their dishes; half had bought them and half had leased them, but it was unclear who would provide the service, if anyone.[8]

[12]

In 1992, nearly all MVPD customers had cable.[13]

In 1994, PrimeStar and DirecTV and USSB began offering digital satellite service. With one million subscribers in 18 months, digital satellite set a record for the quickest acceptance of a new technology; VCRs took four years to sell one million units. EchoStar and AlphaStar joined in 1996.

2.2 million people subscribed to C-band service requiring 6-foot dishes costing as much as $1500, but this number was remaining steady, while digital satellite service with 18-inch dishes experienced phenomenal growth, reaching 4.5 million subscribers by the end of 1996, up about 2 million in a year. Cable TV had 65 million users but was already starting to see people switch to satellite. Satellite TV offered more channels than cable, though broadcast networks were not allowed if their affiliates could be received with an antenna.

DirecTV and USSB had 2.5 million subscribers, while PrimeStar, with 27-inch dishes that could be rented rather than purchased, had 1.6 million.

Cable companies responded to the success of satellite by offering digital set-top boxes with more channels. They also owned a share of PrimeStar because offering cable in rural areas was too expensive.[14]

An FCC report released January 8, 2001 said that in the year ending in June 2000, the number of satellite subscribers increased from 10.1 million to 13 million, a rate of increase three times that of cable. Satellite represented 15.4 percent of those paying for TV, while cable was down from 82 percent to 80 percent. Cable charges increased at a rate 50 percent higher than the Consumer Price Index. [15]

By 2012, satellite dishes had 30 percent of the market.[13]

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act

Main article: Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 stated "No cable system or other multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except with the express authority of the originating station."[16] This meant that instead of must-carry, stations could demand retransmission consent, requiring that the station be paid.[16]

Telephone companies

In 2005, Verizon introduced FiOS. In 2008, AT&T introduced AT&T U-verse.

The Digital TV Transition Fairness Act

On January 7, 2009, independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced the Digital TV Transition Fairness Act. He introduced the idea in a September 19, 2008, letter to Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin which stated, in part, "Americans should not be forced to pay for cable, satellite, or other telecommunications video services to get their free broadcast channels." The bill would provide funds to help people pay for not only converter boxes, but would also subsidize antennas and, where necessary, cable, satellite or other services. The bill was referred to committee.[17][18]

On June 15, 2009, U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, introduced the House version of Sanders' bill. It would require MVPDs to offer a $10 basic package to anyone who lost at least one channel to the DTV conversion (with broadcasters waiving fees), pay for outdoor antennas (including installation) and extend the converter box program beyond July 31, 2009.[19][20]

Proposals to expand wireless broadband

Even after the DTV conversion made 100 MHz in new spectrum available for wireless broadband, a total of 800 MHz was needed. A Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) study claimed that $62 billion worth of spectrum could become $1 trillion for wireless, and one proposal would require all TV stations, including LPTV, to give up all spectrum, with subsdized MVPDs replacing over-the-air TV, even after viewers spent a great deal of money on the DTV transition.[21][22] Broadcasters responded, "In the broadcasting context, the 'total value' is not a strict financial measure, but rather is one that encompasses the broader public policy objectives such as universal service, local journalism and public safety."[21] Broadcasters pointed out that the government, viewers and the related industries spent $1.5 billion making sure that a minority of the audience would be ready for the DTV transition. Any change could mean the loss of free TV to people in rural areas, broadcasters said, particularly "local journalism, universal service, availability of educational programming, and timely and reliable provision of emergency information."[21]

FCC broadband advisor Blair Levin wanted a plan by February 2010. Among the possibilities were restricting over-the-air stations to a single standard definition channel, and requiring each network affiliate to be one of a group of subchannels of a single channel, with HDTV only available from a MVPD. Although other spectrum was being considered, Levin said of the broadcast spectrum, "It's very attractive for wireless." As for the CEA "total recall" proposal, Levin said, "The discussions to date between the broadcasters and the commission would free up spectrum but allow all channels to broadcast over the air."[22]

Regarding the CEA study's findings, David Donovan of The Association for Maximum Service Television said to Broadcasting & Cable magazine:

Wireless companies are asking the government to participate in the biggest consumer bait-and-switch in American history. For the last few years, the government told consumers that digital television would bring them free over-the-air HDTV and more channels. Now, after purchasing billions of dollars in new digital equipment and antennas, wireless advocates are asking the government to renege on its promise. High-definition programming and more digital channels would become the sole and exclusive province of pay services. The American public simply will not stand for this.[22]

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, in a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachwoski, predicted "an adverse effect on consumers."[23]

Another proposal was "geo-filtered WiMAX", which would allow HDTV but only in a particular market, with the remainder of the spectrum sold for $60 billion. WiMax would replace the existing services but would make MVPD services cheaper, while still allowing broadcasters to make more money. The additional spectrum made available could then be sold to pay the industry's debt.[22]

Municipal systems

In 2008, Wilson, North Carolina introduced Greenlight, created at a cost of $28 million.[24]

In November 2010,[25] Salisbury, North Carolina introduced Fibrant, a fiber optic broadband utility offering Internet, cable and telephone service.[26] Fibrant was one of 60 municipal networks in the country. The city borrowed $30 million to install the service, which offered faster Internet speeds at a lower price than competitors. The North Carolina General Assembly was considering legislation to stop such networks, which private companies opposed due to the municipal utilities not having to pay taxes and having the ability to subsidize.[25] After eight months, 96 percent of customers continued to subscribe, and 1255 had service or wanted it.[26] 4500 were needed for the servie to be self-sufficient; this was predicted to happen in 2014.[27]

Merging TV and Internet

In December 2009, the FCC began looking into using set-top boxes to make TVs into broadband video players. FCC Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake had said earlier that TV and the Internet would soon be the same, but only 75 percent of homes had computers, while 99 percent had TV. A Nielsen survey said 99 percent of video viewing was done on TV.[28]

On May 21, 2012, Discovery Communications CEO David M. Zaslav said that in the future, companies would sell cable channels using the Internet. These companies would not have their own delivery system but would depend on existing cable companies or other Internet service providers.

Sky Angel asked to distribute Discovery Channel in this way, but Discovery said no. Sky Angel asked that the Federal Communications Commission declare Sky Angel to be an MVPD. In spring 2012, the FCC asked for comments on such a plan.[29]

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, American Cable Association, Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Cablevision said that online video distributors (OVDs) were not MVPDs unless they had their own distribution facilities, and the decision to change this status could not be done by the Media Bureau. Instead, such a change would have to be made by the full commission or by Congress. Specifically, Comcast said, "Congress did not and could not conceive of OVD services ... as MVPD services."[30] Affiliates of ABC, CBS and NBC said to include OVDs in the MVPD definition. By not bring included as MVPDs, OVDs would not be subject to retransmission rules. The Media Bureau pointed out in its request for comment that if companies such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, Vudu and Vimeo were given program-access protection and subjected to MVPD regulations, some of the companies might be put out of business.[30]

Cord cutters

Parks Associates estimated that in 2008, about 900,000 American households relied entirely on the Internet for TV viewing, and the company expected that number to increase. Leichtman Research Group found that six percent of Americans watched at least one show online each week in 2008, a figure that grew to eight percent in 2009. The number of Americans subscribing to cable increased two percent in 2008, but growth was slowing. Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. found that in fourth quarter 2008, the increase was seven-tenths of one percent, or 220,000 homes, the lowest ever.[31]

A Centris report showed that due to the economy, eight percent of Americans expected to cancel their pay-TV service in third quarter 2009. About half of Americans tried to get a better deal. Netflix, Amazon.com, iTunes, Hulu and YouTube made cancelling service possible for those who would be unable to see their favorite programs over the air. Another option was BitTorrent. Sports programming was a big reason for not cancelling pay TV, though online options existed for many events. Another problem was the inability to watch many programs live, or at least soon enough in the case of series TV.[32]

2010 was the first year pay TV had any quarterly decreases in its numbers. As of second quarter 2012, Sanford Bernstein determined that losses took place in five quarters.[33] Leichtman found that the decrease in pay subscriptions was not happening in large numbers. One reason was that some sports events, as well as other types of television (such as cable TV series), could not be seen online. Sanford Bernstein said the number of pay-TV subscribers increased by 677,000 in first quarter 2010, and a New York Times/CBS News poll showed 88 percent of those surveyed had such a service, and only 15 percent had considered going exclusively to web services. People under 45, the survey said, were four times more likely to use the Internet only. To combat the trend, pay-TV providers were allowing people to see television on laptops, tablets and iPads. Craig Moffett of Sanford C. Bernstein still said high prices and other methods would eventually drive customers away, calling cord cutting "perhaps the most overhyped and overanticipated phenomenon in tech history."[34]

Comcast reported a loss of 275,000 subscribers in third quarter 2010, bringing the year's total to 625,000. The company said most of these were not people leaving for another service. Moffett said the economy was a big reason for cancelling service, pointing out that cable companies needed to offer cheaper packages,[35] but a Strategy Analytics survey revealed financial considerations were not the primary reason. People were not satisfied with what they could get, and online sources had so much more. The survey showed 13 percent of cable subscribers intended to cancel service in the next year. Sightly more than half were under age 40, and nearly all had a high school education. Two-thirds had or planned further schooling. And just over half earned at least $50,000 a year.[36]

In second quarter 2011, Comcast lost 238,000 TV customers, compared to 265,000 a year earlier, though the company was making up for these losses with increases in services other than TV. Moffett said the slowing rate indicated that online sources were not making people drop cable as quickly. On the other hand, Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications lost more customers in the quarter than in 2010.[37] For Time Warner the number was 130,000. Dish Network lost 135,000, while DirecTV gained 26,000, compared to 100,000 the previous year. In fact, Nielsen Media Research said the number of televisions decreased from 115.9 million to 114.7 million, while viewing by computer, tablets or smartphone was increasing. Services such as U-Verse were increasing their subscriber numbers by offering special features.[38] My Multiview allowed people to watch four channels at once. Cablevision had iO TV Quick Views allowing up to nine channels at once.[39]

A Nielsen report showed that in fourth quarter 2011, the number of people paying for TV dropped 15 million or 1.5 percent, and the number of cable subscribers dropped by 2.9 million.[40]

A 2012 Deloitte report said 9 percent of TV households dropped cable in 2011 and 11 percent planned to.[41] Sanford Bernstein estimates 400,000 dropped pay video services in second quarter 2012, up from 340,000 in 2011. One reason for the drop is college students going home for the summer, and the companies make up for the loss in other quarters. However, the number of new homes paying for TV is less than the total number of new homes.[33] Another possible reason is services, such as time shifting and recording live TV, that were once exclusive to pay television are now being offered to cord cutters.[42]

Although the number of subscribers usually increases in the third quarter, in 2012 only 30,000 added pay TV, according to the International Strategy & Investment Group. Cable lost 340,000 (with Time Warner accounting for 140,000 of that number) and satellite gained only 50,000; telephone companies added 320.[43]

In all of 2012, 46,000 pay TV added new subscribers, out of 974,000 new homes overall, according to SNL Kagan. 84.7 percent of households subscribed, compared to 87.3 percent in early 2010.[44]

Another category of cord-cutters was labeled "Zero TV" in March 2013 by Nielsen. In 2007 2 million households had neither subscription TV nor over-the-air TV. By 2013, this number was 5 million. Most people in this category were younger, without children. People could still see shows online or through services such as Netflix. At the 2013 National Association of Broadcasters Show, the solution for broadcasters was said to be Mobile TV.[44]

A 2013 Leichtman survey showed that the 13 largest MVPD companies, covering 94 percent of the country, experienced their first year-to-year loss. 80,000 subscribers dropped their service in the year ending March 31, 2013. 1.5 million cable customers left, with Time Warner counting 553,000 and Comcast 359,000. AT&T and Verizon went up by 1.32 million, and DirecTV and Dish increased their numbers by 160,000, compared to 439,000 the previous year. Before 2013, only quarter-to-quarter losses had been recorded industrywide. Internet video and switching to over-the-air TV were reasons. Bruce Leichtman described the subscription TV industry as "saturated".[45]

A TDG study showed nearly 101 million subscribed to TV at the industry's peak in 2011, but the number would fall below 95 million in 2017.[46]

"Cord-nevers"

On November 28, 2011, a report by Credit Suisse media analyst Stefan Anninger said that young people who grew up accustomed to watching shows online would be less likely to subscribe to pay-TV services. He used the term "cord-nevers" for these people. Anninger predicted that by the end of 2012 the industry's subscribers would drop by 200,000 to 100.5 million. He blamed the economy but said consumers were not likely to return to paying for TV even after the recovery. In the case of land-line telephones, people had believed the young would eventually get them, but now a large number of subscribers only have mobile phones. The same will be true for pay TV, Anninger predicted, and lower-priced packages with fewer channels will become necessary to reverse the trend.[47]

Also using the term "cord-nevers" was Richard Schneider, whose company Antennas Direct was selling antennas through the Internet. After a decade in business, the company was selling 600,000 antennas a year. However, Schneider said some people only knew of the Internet and services such as Netflix and were not even aware over-the-air TV even existed.[44]

In a speech on November 16, 2012, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said "cord nevers" did not see anything worth paying for.[48]

See also

References

  1. ^ Communications Act of 1934 as Amended by the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, Retrieved on 2009-07-16.
  2. ^ a b Stecklow, Steve (1984-07-07). "America's Favorite Dish". The Miami Herald. Knight-Ridder News Service. p. 1C.
  3. ^ Stecklow, Steve (1984-10-25). "Research Needed in Buying Dish: High Cost Is Important Consideration for Consumer". Wichita Eagle. Knight-Ridder News Service. p. 6C.
  4. ^ Berger, Dan (1984-07-15). "Linkabit's success is built on intellectual curiosity". The San Diego Union. p. I-1.
  5. ^ "Scrambled NBC Bad News for Satellite Pirates". The San Francisco Chronicle. United Press International. 1988-11-03. p. E3.
  6. ^ a b Wolf, Ron (1983-11-22). "Satellite Television: The Future Is Now". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. D01.
  7. ^ Stecklow, Steve (1984-05-06). "New Service Offers Stations Via Satellite, No Cable Necessary". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. P09.
  8. ^ a b c Borowski, Neill (1983-12-18). "Defunct Pay-TV Firm May Abandon Antennas". The Philadelphia Inquirer]]. p. C10.
  9. ^ Wolf, Ron (1985-01-20). "Direct-Broadcast TV Is Still Not Turned On". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. C01.
  10. ^ Wolf, Ron (1985-04-02). "Satellite TV Service Goes Off the Air". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. E08.
  11. ^ Stecklow, Steve (1985-04-28). "Problems of Satellite-TV Service Leave Viewers with Empty Dishes". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. M11.
  12. ^ Stecklow, Steve (1985-09-30). "Change Is Near for Satellite Service". The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. P10.
  13. ^ a b "Cheer for the Chairman," Broadcasting & Cable, 2012-05-28.
  14. ^ Boraks, David (1997-01-19). "The Dish Gets Hot". The Charlotte Observer. p. 1D.
  15. ^ Guerrero, Lucio (2001-01-09). "Dishes gain on cable TV: Cost, features nudge viewers to satellites". Chicago Sun-Times. p. 12.
  16. ^ a b Schindler, Harold (1993-06-15). "KSL Puts Cable on Notice". The Salt Lake Tribune. p. C7.
  17. ^ Sanders Supports Digital TV Delay, sanders.senate.gov, Retrieved on 2009-07-16.
  18. ^ S. 25: Digital TV Transition Fairness Act, govtrack.us, Retrieved on 2009-07-16.
  19. ^ Eggerton, John (2009-06-17). "House Version of Sanders DTV Bill Introduced". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved 2009-07-08.
  20. ^ H.R. 2867: Digital TV Transition Fairness Act, govtrack.us, Retrieved on 2009-07-16.
  21. ^ a b c Eggerton, John (2009-10-26). "Broadcasters Defend Spectrum From Reclamation Proposals". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved 2009-10-30.
  22. ^ a b c d Eggerton, John (2009-11-02). "Broadcasters Defend Their Spectrum". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
  23. ^ Eggerton, John (2009-11-17). "Dingell Concerned About Spectrum Reallocation Proposals". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
  24. ^ Wineka, Mark (2010-04-20). "Salisbury rolls out new Fibrant Web site". Salisbury Post.
  25. ^ a b Ford, Emily (2010-12-03). "Analysis: Fibrant superior". Salisbury Post.
  26. ^ a b Ford, Emily (2011-08-26). "Fibrant subscribers a month and a half behind projections". Salisbury Post.
  27. ^ Ford, Emily (2012-02-22). "Fibrant costs down, sales up". Salisbury Post.
  28. ^ Eggerton, John (2009-12-14). "Broadcasters Squeezed by Convergence Push". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved 2009-12-17.
  29. ^ Stelter, Brian (2012-05-22). "If Video Sites Could Act Like Cable Companies". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-03-07.
  30. ^ a b Eggerton, John (2012-05-21). "What Is an MVPD, Exactly? Cable Ops Weigh In". Multichannel News. Retrieved 2014-03-06.
  31. ^ Lawton, Christopher (2009-05-28). "More Households Cut the Cord on Cable". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2011-12-21.
  32. ^ Glaser, Mark (2010-01-08). "Your Guide to Cutting the Cord to Cable TV". PBS. Retrieved 2011-12-21.
  33. ^ a b Ramachandran, Shalini (2012-08-15). "Evidence Grows on TV Cord-Cutting". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-08-30.
  34. ^ Richtel, Matt; Stelter, Brian (2010-08-23). "In the Living Room, Hooked on Pay TV". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  35. ^ Arango, Tim (2010-10-27). "Comcast Loses More Subscribers Than Expected, but Its Earnings Top Estimates". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  36. ^ Lawler, Ryan (2010-10-29). "Cord Cutters Are Young, Educated and Employed". gigaom.com. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  37. ^ Sherman, Alex (2011-08-03). "Comcast Second-Quarter Profit Advances 16% as Video-Subscriber Losses Slow". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  38. ^ Snider, Mike (2011-09-18). "Cable TV losing subscribers to economy, new technology". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  39. ^ Spangler, Todd (2011-03-20). "Cablevision Tiles Up To Nine Favorite Channels On One Screen". Multichannel News. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
  40. ^ "Nielsen: Cable Loses 2.9M Subscribers As 1.5M U.S. Households Cut Cord In 2011". deadline.com. 2012-05-05.
  41. ^ Fottrell, Quentin (2012-06-24). "Why your cable TV bill will never get cheaper". News & Observer. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
  42. ^ http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-17742_7-10019233-19.html
  43. ^ Lafayette, Jon (2012-11-12). "TV Execs Are Bullish on Q4". Broadcasting & Cable.
  44. ^ a b c Nakashima, Ryan (2013-04-07). "Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes". Associated Press. Retrieved 2013-06-04.
  45. ^ Spangler, Todd (2013-05-20). "Cord-Cutting: At Last, Hard Evidence It's Really Happening". Variety. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  46. ^ Jeff John Roberts (2013-01-11). "Pay TV will shrink for first time in history, study says cable watching peaked in 2011".
  47. ^ Flint, Joe (2011-11-28). "Analyst warns of bleak outlook for cable industry". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-12-02.
  48. ^ Jeff John Roberts (2012-11-16). "Time Warner CEO: Cord cutters not an issue, "cord nevers" might be".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multichannel_television_in_the_United_States&oldid=602772797"