Federal Communications Commission fcc 12-81 Before the Federal Communications Commission

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph #

I. Executive summary 1

II. introduction 12

A. Scope of the Report 12

B. Analytic Framework 15

C. Data Sources 16

III. PROVIDERS OF dELIVERED vIDEO pROGRAMMING 18

A. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors 18

1. Introduction 18

2. MVPD Structure 25

3. MVPD Conduct 85

4. MVPD Performance 134

B. Broadcast Television Stations 155

1. Introduction 155

2. Broadcast Television Industry Structure 158

3. Broadcast Television Industry Conduct 188

4. Broadcast Television Industry Performance 206

C. Online Video Distributors 237

1. Introduction 237

2. OVD Structure 241

3. OVD Conduct 285

4. OVD Performance 314

5. Consumer Behavior 336

IV. Rural Versus Urban Comparisons 343

A. MVPDs 345

B. Broadcast Stations 356

C. OVDs 357

V. key industry inputs 359

A. Content Creation and Aggregation of Video Programming 360

1. Overview 360

2. Distribution Strategies 377

B. Consumer Premises Equipment 388

1. CPE Used to Access MVPD Services. 389

2. CPE Used to Access OVD Services 399

3. Handheld and Mobile Video Devices 401

VI. procedural matters 405

APPENDIX B: National Video Programming Services

APPENDIX C: Regional Video Programming Services

APPENDIX D: Regional Sports Networks

1. Executive summary

1. 
   This is the fourteenth report (“14^th Report” or “Report”) submitted by the Federal Communications Commission to the United States Congress on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming as required by Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”).¹ In this Report, we focus on developments in the video marketplace in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.² As described below, the most significant trends since the last report relate to the increased deployment of digital technology, consumers’ rising demands for access to video programming anywhere and anytime, and the evolution of online video from a niche service into a thriving industry.
   
2. 
   For the first time, we present information and data under a new analytical framework, which is consistent with the framework we have used in the recent wireless and satellite competition reports.³ For this Report, we categorize entities into one of three strategic groups – multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”),⁴ broadcast television stations,⁵ and online video distributors (“OVDs”).⁶ For each of these categories we examine industry structure, conduct, and performance. The following is an overview of our findings.
   
3. 
   MVPDs. Cable MVPDs accounted for almost 60 percent of all MVPD subscribers at the end of 2010. This represents a decline in cable’s share of the MVPD group since the last report. In 2006, cable MVPDs accounted for over 65 percent of all MVPD subscribers. Although the number of cable video subscribers has been falling, cable MVPDs have done well financially by increasing sales of advanced services (e.g., digital cable, Internet access, and telephone) to the remaining customers.
   
4. 
   The two DBS MVPDs, DIRECTV and DISH Network, accounted for over 33 percent of MVPD subscribers in 2010. This represents an increase in DBS’s share of the MVPD group since 2006 when DBS MVPDs accounted for just over 29 percent of MVPD subscribers.
   
5. 
   In the MVPD group, the most significant change in the status of competition has been the entry of AT&T and Verizon. These two telephone companies have upgraded their networks to provide video services that compete directly with cable and DBS. At the end of 2010, the video services of Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse were available to one-third of U.S. homes and accounted for approximately seven percent of all MVPD subscribers. In 2006, Verizon’s service was available to approximately three percent of all U.S. households.⁷
   
6. 
   Another significant development within the MVPD category has been the “TV Everywhere” initiative,⁸ which allows subscribers of certain MVPD services to access MVPD video programming on stationary and mobile Internet-connected devices including: televisions, computers, tablets, and smartphones.
   
7. 
   Broadcast Television Stations. Since the last report, full-power television stations completed their transition from analog to digital service. Digital broadcasting gives broadcast stations greater flexibility, allowing them to offer high definition (“HD”) programming, multiple streams of programming of standard definition (“SD”) programming, and/or programming delivered to mobile devices. With multicasting,⁹ stations can cater to niche audiences with programming from newer networks or can affiliate their multicast streams with established networks to give viewers in smaller markets more over-the-air viewing options.
   
8. 
   Several major patterns of consumer behavior have emerged which impact broadcast stations. The first is the dramatic increase in the number of households with HD television sets, from 25 percent during the 2007-2008 television seasons to 64 percent during the 2010-2011 television season. The second is the doubling of penetration of digital video recorders (DVRs), from 19 percent during the 2007-2008 television season to 38 percent during the 2010-2011 television season. The availability of DVRs and of broadband and mobile devices has spurred consumers’ desire to watch video on a time-shifted basis either on television sets or on other screens. In recent years, broadcast networks have started to explore and develop a variety of alternative outlets and business models for the distribution of their programming, including video-on-demand (“VOD”), online video distribution, and electronic sell-through.¹⁰
   
9. 
   OVDs. Since the last report, OVDs have emerged as significant providers of video content. The OVD marketplace has expanded considerably, with all of the major providers either entering the market over the last few years or dramatically retooling their approach during that time. Today’s growing list of OVD providers includes programmers, content owners/producers, and affiliates of online services, manufacturers, retailers, and other businesses.
   
10. 
    Providers have continued to develop business models for the provision of OVD services. Current business models, which providers often use in combination, include free (often ad supported), subscription, pay-per-program (rental), and electronic sell-through.
    
11. 
    The amount of professionally produced content available online has expanded considerably since the last report. Today, online viewers can watch television shows (including recently aired episodes); newly released and older movies; sporting events; and other content, including high-quality content produced specifically for online distribution. Online video, like the Internet itself, has migrated beyond the computer to a wide variety of devices since the last report. Consumers now can access OVD service via computers, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, smart television sets, Blu-ray players, and a host of consumer electronics products.
    

2. introduction

   1. Scope of the Report

12. 
    Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“1992 Cable Act”)¹ amended the Act and established regulations for the purpose of increasing competition and diversity in multichannel video programming distribution, increasing the availability of satellite delivered programming, and spurring the development of communications technologies.² To measure progress toward these goals, Congress required the Commission to report annually on “the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.”³
    
13. 
    In 2009, the Commission solicited 2007, 2008, and 2009 data, information, and comment for the period 2007, 2008, and 2009 similar to what the Commission requested for previous reports.⁴ Thereafter, the Commission initiated a comprehensive review of the way in which it uses data, including data used for its statutory competition reports.⁵ In the course of that review, the Commission determined that the data submitted in response to the 2009 notices of inquiry should be supplemented. Thus, on April 21, 2011, the Commission released a Further Notice of Inquiry, requesting additional data for 2009, seeking data for 2010, and encouraging the submission of comparable historical data for 2007 and 2008.⁶
    
14. 
    To present the most useful information concerning competition in the video programming market, this report alters the analytic framework of earlier reports.⁷ Importantly, this new framework will also allow the Commission to present competitive data in a uniform manner that is consistent in format with the other Commission competition reports.⁸
    

1. 
   
   Directory: edocs public -> attachmatch
   attachmatch -> Commissioner ajit pai
   attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
   attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
   attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
   attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
   attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D
   attachmatch -> Federal Communications Commission fcc 15-77 Before the Federal Communications Commission
   attachmatch -> Statement of commissioner ajit pai
   
   
   
   Download 2.21 Mb.
   
   Share with your friends: