Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
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 on Average Rates for Basic 
Service, Cable Programming Service, and 
Equipment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 92-266
REPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES
Adopted:  January 15, 2009 Released: January 16, 2009
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1
II. OVERVIEW OF STUDY .................................................................................................................... 15
III. SURVEY RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 21
A. Basic, Expanded Basic and Digital Services................................................................................. 21
B. Weighted Average Cable Prices................................................................................................ 27
C. Price Per Viewing Hour.............................................................................................................. 31
D. Programming Expense for Expanded Basic................................................................................... 37
E. Family Tier..................................................................................................................................... 38
F. Programming Sold on an Individual Basis..................................................................................... 40
G. Distribution of Channels ................................................................................................................ 42
H. Subscriber Equipment.................................................................................................................... 45
I. Service Installation Charges ......................................................................................................... 46
J. System Operating Capacity............................................................................................................ 47
K. Services Availability and Subscription .......................................................................................... 49
L. Receipts from Cable Services ........................................................................................................ 50
IV. ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................................. 54
V.  CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………………55
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE......................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
2
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Section 623(k) of the Communications Act, as amended by the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“Cable Act”),1 requires the Commission to publish a 
statistical report on average rates charged for the basic cable service and cable programming service tiers, 
and cable equipment.2 The Cable Act also requires the Commission to compare the average rates of cable 
operators subject to “effective competition,” as identified through specific adjudications, with those of 
cable operators that have not been found subject to effective competition.3 The key findings are presented 
below.
2. Averages for all communities.  The average monthly price of expanded basic service 
(the combined price of basic cable service and cable programming service) increased by 3.9 percent over 
the 12 months ending January 1, 2006; by 4.6 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2007; and by 
5.0 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2008.  Chart 1 below shows the trend in cable prices 
from 1995 to 2008.  Over this 13-year period, the price of expanded basic service has grown from $22.35 
to $49.65, an increase of 122.1 percent, compared with an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 38.4 
percent over the same period. 4
  
1 Section 623(k) was adopted as Section 3(k) of the 1992 Cable Act, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified 
at 47 U.S.C. § 543(k).
2 The term “service tier” refers to a category of cable service provided by a cable operator and for which a separate 
rate is charged.  See 47 U.S.C. § 522(l7).  Cable operators are required to offer an entry-level video-programming 
service tier called “basic cable service.”  Basic cable service must include, at a minimum, the local broadcast 
stations and any public, educational, and governmental access channels that may be required pursuant to an 
agreement with a local government.  See 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(7).  “Cable programming service” includes channels 
other than channels on the basic cable service tier or for which per-channel or per-program charges apply.  See 47 
U.S.C. § 543(k)(1)(2).  The term “cable equipment” refers to a cable converter box, remote control unit, and other 
equipment used to access cable services.  See 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(3).
3 47 U.S.C. § 543(k)(1) (cross-referencing 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2)).
4 We note that during the survey period most major publicly traded cable MSOs continued to report double-digit or 
near double-digit revenue and operating cash flow or operating income growth rates on both a quarterly and an 
annual basis.  Comcast, for example, reported that its cable operations experienced 9.4 and 13.4 percent increases in 
revenue and operating cash flow, respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2007 compared with the same quarter of 
2006, and, for the full year 2007 over 2006, reported 11.1 and 13.5 percent increases, respectively.  See Comcast 
Corp., Comcast Reports 2007 Results and Provides Outlook for 2008 (press release), Feb. 14, 2008.  Time Warner 
reported that pro forma revenue and operating income for its cable operations grew by 6.5 and 17.1 percent, 
respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2007 over the fourth quarter of 2006, and by 8.1 and 11.8 percent, 
respectively, for the full year 2007 over 2006.  See Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Reports 2007Full-Year 
and Fourth-Quarter Results (press release), Feb. 6, 2008.  For the fourth quarter of 2007, Cablevision reported 
consolidated revenue and operating cash flow growth of 10.8 and 20.4 percent, respectively, and, for the full year 
2007 over 2006, reported 11.3 and 16.8 percent growth, respectively.  Cablevision also specifically emphasized that 
it continued to experience high growth rates in its cable television services operations, where revenue and cash flow 
grew by 8.6 and 13.3 percent, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2007 compared to the fourth quarter of 2006, and 
by 11.6 and 9.6 percent, respectively, for the full year 2007 over 2006.  See Cablevision Systems Corp., Cablevision 
Systems Corporation Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2007 Results (press release), Feb. 28, 2008.  Mediacom 
reported that its revenue and operating cash flow increased by 6.2 and 7.7 percent, respectively, in the fourth quarter 
2007 compared to the fourth quarter of 2006, and by 6.9 and 4.2 percent, respectively, for the full year 2007 over 
2006.  See Mediacom Communications Corp., Mediacom Communication Reports Results for Fourth Quarter and 
Full Year 2007 (press release), Feb. 26, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
3
Chart 1
Cable Price and the CPI, 1995-2008 
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Percent Change
Expanded Basic Price
CPI - All Items
CPI - All Items
2008  
$49.65
1995  
$22.35
3. Cable prices decrease substantially when a second wireline cable operator enters the 
market.  It does not appear from these results that DBS effectively constrains cable prices.  Thus, in the 
large number of communities in which there has been a finding that the statutory test for effective 
competition has been met due to the presence of DBS service, competition does not appear to be 
restraining price as it does in the small number of communities with a second cable operator as reflected 
in Chart 1-a below.  Prices were 15.5 percent lower as of January 1, 2006; 10.3 percent lower as of 
January 1, 2007; and 10.1 percent lower as of January 1, 2008 in communities served by a second cable 
operator than they were in noncompetitive communities.
Chart 1-a
Average Price for Expanded Basic Cable Service
Comparison of Competition from DBS and from Second Cable Operator
$45.48 $47.49
$49.97 $48.87$47.25
$45.83 $44.92$42.59
$38.45
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
2006 2007 2008
No finding of Competition DBS Second Cable Operator
4. Competition from DBS does not appear to constrain expanded basic cable prices –
average prices were slightly higher as of January 1, 2006; about the same as of January 1, 2007; and about 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
4
2.2 percent lower as of January 1, 2008, in communities where competition from DBS was the basis for 
relieving a cable operator from rate regulation than they were in noncompetitive communities.
5. Recent experience in Hong Kong provides further evidence that wireline competition 
constrains cable bills.  Between 1995 and 2002, cable bills for subscribers of the leading cable service 
provider, “i-Cable”, grew at a rate 6.5 times faster than prices for other goods.5 Cable prices began 
falling, however, when competitor “now TV” entered the market in 2003.  Between 2004 and 2007, i-
Cable’s average revenue per user declined 32.9 percent.6 Hong Kong’s wireline competition has also 
furthered a la carte offerings.  When now TV entered the MVPD market in 2003, it offered a la carte 
channels and currently offers 29 free channels and 17 a la carte channels.  In response, in 2005, i-Cable 
began offering theme packages.7 In Singapore, wireline competition had a similar effect on a la carte 
offerings.  In 2007, SingTel entered the MVPD market in competition with incumbent StarHub.  
SingTel’s entry into the market included a la carte pay TV options.  In response, StarHub began offering 
more varied bundled options including a Flexiwatch plan which allows customers that don’t watch much 
television to purchase individual channels for as little as three days a month.8
6. Differences between noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from basic-
tier rate regulation. Over the year ending January 1, 2006, prices increased at the same rate – 3.9 percent 
– for both groups of cable operators, those relieved from rate regulation of their basic tier (i.e., those 
whom the Commission has found face “effective competition” in their service areas) and those serving 
noncompetitive communities (i.e., those for whom no effective competition finding exists).  For the years 
ending January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, prices increased by 6.1 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, 
for the group relieved from rate regulation and by 4.3 percent and 5.2 percent for the noncompetitive 
group.
7. As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, cable operators on average 
charged $45.26, $47.27, and $49.65, respectively, per month for expanded basic programming service.  
As of the same three dates, cable operators granted relief from rate regulation charged an average of 
$43.70, $46.28, and $48.19, respectively, per month for those services, and operators serving 
noncompetitive communities charged on average $45.48, $47.49, and $49.97 per month.  Thus, cable 
operators granted relief from rate regulation continue to exhibit lower expanded basic prices – on average, 
3.9 percent lower as of January 1, 2006; 2.6 percent lower as of January 1, 2007; and 3.6 percent lower as 
of January 1, 2008 – than cable operators that serve noncompetitive communities.
  
5 See i-Cable Communications Ltd., at http://www.i-cablecomm.com/ir/report/index.php.  Between 1995 and 2002, 
i-Cable Communications Ltd. Held an exclusive license to provide pay television service throughout Hong Kong via 
its Cable TV Hong Kong subsidiary.  In July 2002, the Hong Kong government opened the pay television market to 
competition.  Between 1995 and 2002, Cable TV Hong Kong’s Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) increased 13 
percent.  For purposes of this analysis, we use ARPU as a proxy for the average bill paid by cable subscribers.  
During this same period, Hong Kong’s Composite CPI increased approximately 2 percent.  See The Government of 
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Census and Statistics Department 
at http://www.censtatd.gov.hk.
6 SNL Kagan Media and Communication at 
http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Operator.aspx?id=4209088&Printable=1ResetDefaults=1 (visited November 5, 
2008).
7 See i-Cable Communications Ltd., 2005 Annual Report, at 11, available at http://www.i-
cablecomm.com/ir/report/index/php.
8 Huang Xueling, “StarHub revamps packages: Cable subscribers get more choices with a new tier and extra 
channels,” THE STRAITS TIMES (Singapore), May 30, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
5
8. For all three years measured, the degree of difference between expanded basic prices 
charged by cable operators that have been granted relief from rate regulation and those that serve 
noncompetitive communities varied by subgroup, with the highest percentage differential in each of those 
three years associated with the subgroup of cable operators for which relief from rate regulation was 
based on competition from a second wireline cable operator.  
9. The charts below show the average prices for expanded basic service for noncompetitive 
communities and the communities relieved from rate regulation. 
Chart 2
Average Price for Expanded Basic Cable Service
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2006
$38.45
$45.83$45.48 $45.20 $44.73
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS    
Competition
Wireless     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
Chart 2-a
Average Price for Expanded Basic Cable Service
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2007
$42.59$47.25$47.49 $47.17 $46.93
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS    
Competition
Wireless     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
6
Chart 2-b
Average Price for Expanded Basic Cable Service
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2008
$44.92$48.87$49.97 $49.65 $49.80
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS    
Competition
Wireless     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
 
10. Weighted average cable prices. Reflecting the widespread popularity of digital tiers, for 
the first time we report the “weighted average price of cable service,” defined as the price of expanded 
basic service plus the price (including equipment) of the most highly subscribed digital tier, with the 
digital price weighted by the percentage of expanded basic cable subscribers that take the digital tier.  The 
weighted average price of cable service (expanded basic plus digital) has increased by 5.8 percent, 4.7 
percent, and 7.4 percent, respectively, over the 12 months ending January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and 
January 1, 2008, and has grown from $22.35 to $58.80 between 1995 and 2008, an increase of 163.1 
percent.
11. Programming Expenses. Operators in both groups surveyed incurred increases in 
programming expenses that were equivalent to more than half of the overall increase in price for 
expanded basic service for each year studied.  Programming expenses increased on an average monthly 
basis by an estimated 6.9 percent, 8.3 percent, and 9.5 percent, respectively, for each of the three years 
between 2004 and 2007.
12. Family Tier.  A number of cable operators have begun offering a “family tier” as an 
alternative to the cable programming service tier which is targeted toward subscribers who may object to 
some of the programming on the latter tier.  As of July 1, 2006, a family tier was available to 46 percent 
of all subscribers nationwide at an average monthly price of $32.20, which includes the cost of basic 
service and the equipment needed to receive the family tier.  As of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, 
this tier was available to 45 percent and 48 percent of subscribers at an average monthly price of $31.15 
and $31.92, respectively.  
13. Advanced Services.  The survey results show that most cable operators now offer 
advanced services to virtually all of their subscribers.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and 
January 1, 2008, cable operators offered digital video service to 98 percent of all subscribers for all three 
years; Internet access was offered to between 96 and 97 percent of all subscribers for all three years; and 
telephone service was offered to 61 percent, 76 percent, and 89 percent, respectively, of all subscribers. 
14. Econometric Analysis.  The Report includes an econometric analysis of the data 
collected.  The results of this analysis show that cable prices tend to be higher in local MVPD markets 
where cable operators have a larger share of the market.  In markets with two competing cable operators, 
the results show that the incumbent operator charges 14.1 percent less, on average, all other things held 
constant, than operators charge in markets where a second cable operator is not present.  The results also 
show a tendency for the incumbent operator to undercut the overbuild rival’s price rather than simply 
matching that price.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
7
II. OVERVIEW OF STUDY
15. The information and analysis provided in this Report are based on the Commission’s 
surveys of cable industry prices (“surveys”) that collected data as of January 1, 2005; January 1, 2006; 
January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, and also on a supplemental survey that collected data as of July 1, 
2006.9 The surveys requested data from cable system operators serving random samples of two groups of 
communities:  (1) communities where operators have not been formally found to meet the statutory test 
for effective competition (“noncompetitive communities”); and (2) communities where cable operators 
have been found to meet the statutory test for effective competition and, as a result,  have been granted 
relief from rate regulation at the local level for their basic cable service tier (“communities relieved from 
rate regulation”).10  
16. In selecting cable operators in the communities relieved from rate regulation, we relied 
on the Commission’s formal findings of effective competition regarding competition between 
multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”),11 based on the statutory definition of effective 
competition under the Cable Act.12 Our list of communities relieved from local rate regulation is limited 
to adjudicated findings of effective competition.  We are unable to take into account those areas of the 
country where the conditions for a finding may be present (i.e., where market-based competition may be 
present), but no finding has been requested or made.13
  
9 The Commission directed cable operators to respond to two separate survey questionnaires – one requested data as 
of January 1, 2006 and the other as of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008.  In addition, the Commission directed 
cable operators to respond to a supplemental survey questionnaire requesting additional data as of July 1, 2006.  The 
supplemental questionnaire asked for information on the availability and prices charged for services such as family 
tiers, channels sold on an individual basis, and “double play” and “triple play” services.  Those questions were then 
incorporated into the questionnaire for January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008.  See Implementation of Section 3 of the 
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic 
Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment,  21 FCC Rcd 1375 (2006); id.,21 FCC Rcd 9031 (2006) 
(“supplemental questionnaire”); id, 23 FCC Rcd 818 (2008). 
10 In order to collect the data for the January 1, 2006 survey, we surveyed cable operators that served 458 out of the 
31,743 noncompetitive communities and cable operators that served 334 out of the 2,055 communities that were 
relieved from rate regulation pursuant to the statute.  The same communities were surveyed for the supplemental 
questionnaire (which collected data as of July 1, 2006).  For the January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008 data, we 
selected a different random sample of communities, and surveyed 407 out of 30,352 noncompetitive communities 
and 305 out of 3,205 communities relieved from rate regulation.  See Attachments 1-a and 1-b for further details 
about the surveyed cable operators.
11 The term “MVPD” refers to an entity such as, but not limited to, a cable operator that makes available for 
purchase multiple channels of video programming.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(d).
12 Under the Cable Act, a cable operator may obtain a finding of “effective competition” for a community that meets 
one of four tests:  (1) fewer than 30 percent of households subscribe to the cable operator’s video programming 
service (“LP” or “low penetration test”);  (2) at least two MVPDs each offer a comparable service to at least 50 
percent of households and at least 15 percent of all households subscribe to such service other than from the largest 
MVPD (“50/15 test”);  (3) a municipality is an MVPD to at least 50 percent of households (“municipal test”);  or (4) 
a local exchange carrier or its affiliate, or an MVPD using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate, offers 
multichannel video programming service by means other than direct broadcast satellite in an area that is also served 
by an unaffiliated cable operator (“LEC test”).  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b).  If a community is deemed subject to 
effective competition, the local franchising authority may no longer regulate rates for basic cable service, unless it 
seeks and is granted recertification. See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2) & 47 U.S.C. § 916(a).
13 For example, our sample for data as of January 1, 2006 for the group of communities relieved from local rate 
regulation did not include areas where Verizon’s FiOS TV has brought competition because that service was still in 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
8
17. Brief Overview of Survey Methodology. 14 The samples of cable operators relieved from 
rate regulation were selected from each of four subgroups according to the primary basis for a finding that 
the statutory test for effective competition had been met.  The first subgroup comprises communities in 
which a second cable operator’s offerings provided the basis for the findings of effective competition 
(“second cable operator” subgroup).  In this subgroup, we sampled both incumbent cable operators and 
second cable operators, or “rival” operators.15 This subgroup includes communities meeting either: (a) 
the 50/15 test based on the presence of at least two MVPDs; (b) the local exchange carrier (“LEC”) test 
based on the presence of at least two MVPDs, one of which is a LEC or an entity affiliated with or using 
the facilities of a LEC; or (c) the municipal test based on the presence of at least two MVPDs, one of 
which is operated by the municipality.  The second subgroup comprises communities in which a 
sufficient percentage of households subscribe to DBS service under the 50/15 test (“DBS” subgroup) to 
substantiate a finding of effective competition.16 The third subgroup consists of communities for which 
the effective competition findings were based on the offerings of a rival MVPD providing wireless 
multichannel video programming service (“wireless MVPD” subgroup).17 The fourth subgroup consists 
of cable operators that met the low penetration test at the time of the finding by serving fewer than 30 
percent of households in their service area (“Low Penetration” subgroup). 
18. We asked cable operators to complete questionnaires for each community they serve 
that was selected for these samples.  As required by the statute, the surveys focused on expanded basic 
service, consisting of basic cable service plus the most highly subscribed cable programming service tier 
(“CPST”), as well as the most highly subscribed digital tier.18 Basic cable service consists of the local 
broadcast stations; public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) access channels; and typically a few 
additional channels that may be of local, regional, national, or international origination.  Subscribers must 
purchase basic cable service to subscribe to a cable programming service, the latter consisting mostly of 
national cable networks.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, respectively, 88 
percent, 88 percent, and 89 percent of subscribers took at least expanded basic service; and 12 percent, 12 
  
(...continued from previous page)
its early stages at the time of that survey.  For the January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008 survey, a small number of 
communities served by FiOS were included in our sample. 
14 A complete description of our sampling methodology for both the January 1, 2006 and the January 1, 2007 and 
January 1, 2008 surveys is provided in Appendix A.  Attachments 1-a and 1-b provide an overview of the number of 
observations selected for our samples, and the number of survey questionnaires completed by respondents, for each 
group and subgroup for both surveys.  
15 The term “incumbent” refers to a cable operator that provided service before a second cable operator (the “rival” 
cable operator) entered the market.    
16 We note that because DBS service is available nationwide, there likely are other areas of the country where DBS 
penetration exceeds the 15 percent threshold set forth in the “50/15” test for effective competition, but the 
incumbent cable operator has not requested a finding of effective competition.
17 All effective competition findings associated with wireless MVPD competition have been made under the LEC 
test, although it would be possible for findings to occur under the 50/15 test or municipal test.
18 The term “cable programming service” as used herein generally refers to the tier with (a) the most channels and 
(b) the most subscribers except for basic cable service.  This cable programming service includes channels other than 
those offered on the basic cable service tier, other cable programming tiers including mini tiers, or a per-channel or 
per-program basis.  In general, the most highly subscribed cable programming service is an analog tier, although the 
percentage of subscribers that take a digital tier in addition has grown rapidly in recent years.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
9
percent, and 11 percent took basic cable service only.19 As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and 
January 1, 2008, respectively, 42 percent, 46 percent, and 53 percent of subscribers took at least one 
digital tier of service.20 Cable operators responding to the two surveys were asked to report prices of 
basic cable service, cable programming service, and the most highly subscribed digital service as of four 
dates: January 1, 2008; January 1, 2007; January 1, 2006; and January 1, 2005.  This permitted us to 
calculate the annual percentage changes for the years ending January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and 
January 1, 2008.
19. In addition to these monthly prices, the questionnaires asked for prices to lease cable 
equipment and to install cable service.  In addition, information was gathered on factors that affect prices, 
including programming expenses, system operating capacity, and number of subscribers to various cable 
services.  The supplemental questionnaire (and the questionnaire for January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008) 
asked for information on the availability and prices charged for services such as family tiers, channels 
sold on an individual basis (“a la carte”), and the so-called “double play” and “triple play” services.21  
Averages for each of these elements were calculated by sample subgroup, by the larger sample groups 
(operators serving noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate regulation), and 
overall as a weighted average of the sample groups.22
20. Accuracy and Reliability Review.23 Consistent with past practice, we have undertaken a 
number of steps to improve the accuracy and reliability of the raw data upon which this report is based.  
First, a responsible party within each cable operator's company was asked to certify the completeness and 
accuracy of that company's response.  Next, we systematically examined all responses to ensure that they 
were complete, appeared to be reasonably accurate, and were reliable.  The responses were audited using 
statistical quality-control tests to identify observations with apparent inaccuracies.  For example, when a 
particular response was found to be outside of its expected reasonable range, internally inconsistent, or 
missing, we examined all of the information on that questionnaire more closely.  Finally, we examined 
the data in the tables created for the report as a second layer of quality control to ensure the accuracy of 
the underlying data.  After our examination we contacted those cable operators that appeared to have 
  
19 This includes the 4 percent of subscribers (as of January 1, 2006; as well as January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008) 
whose cable operators do not offer separate rates for the basic cable service programming tier, but which instead 
offer a bundled basic tier that includes channels typically placed on expanded basic.  For the purpose of calculating 
cable prices, we include these bundled prices under basic cable service.  If we were to remove these 4 percent of 
subscribers whose cable operators do not offer separate rates, the average price for basic cable service would be 
$13.99 rather than $14.59 as of January 1, 2006; $14.26 rather than $15.08 as of January 1, 2007; and $15.06 rather 
than $15.93, as of January 1, 2008. 
20 This 42 percent (as of January 1, 2006) is the percent of digital subscribers among all basic subscribers.  The 
percent of digital subscribers among all expanded basic subscribers was 48 percent as of January 1, 2006; 52 percent 
as of January 1, 2007; and 61 percent as of January 1, 2008.  See Attachments 3, 3-a, and 3-b.  Subscription to 
expanded basic service is typically a prerequisite to subscription to a digital tier.  
21 “Double play” refers to the bundling of traditional cable video service together with Internet access service.  
“Triple play” refers to the bundling of traditional video service, Internet access, and cable voice service (including 
both traditional circuit-switched telephony and voice over Internet protocol, or “VOIP,” telephony).  Usually, these 
bundles of services are sold with a discount from the price that would be charged if each service were purchased 
separately.  Our surveys did not attempt to measure these discounts.
22 The weights or importance given to each subgroup and group in calculating the overall average price are based 
upon estimates of the share of cable subscribers in each subgroup and group.  See Appendix A for additional 
information.
23 For additional discussion of our data quality control procedures, see Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
10
questionable data and asked them to correct all responses on any questionnaire that appeared 
unreasonable or to provide information to complete missing responses.24  
III. SURVEY RESULTS
A. Basic, Expanded Basic and Digital Services 
21. Tables 1, 1-a, and 1-b display the average increases in the prices for basic service, 
expanded basic service (consisting of basic cable service and cable programming service), and the most 
highly subscribed digital tier (with Table 1 showing data as of January 1, 2006 and percentage increases 
from January 1, 2005; Table 1-a showing similar data as of January 1, 2007 with percentage increases 
from January 1, 2006; and Table 1-b showing similar data as of January 1, 2008 with percent changes 
from January 1, 2007).25 For the period between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, the average price 
for expanded basic service increased by 3.9 percent, from $43.56 to $45.26.  Over the same period, the 
price of basic cable service increased by 2.7 percent, from $14.20 to $14.59, and the price of cable 
programming service increased by 4.5 percent, from $29.36 to $30.67.  On average, the prices in 
noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate regulation increased at the same rate –
3.9 percent – during that period, to $45.48 and $43.70, respectively.  Overall, the price of expanded basic 
service increased by 122.1 percent from 1995 to 2008, the 13 years since the period immediately prior to 
Congress’ enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
22. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) publishes a Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) that 
measures general price inflation through changes in the prices of goods and services.26 The BLS also 
publishes a CPI index which excludes food and energy.  This index is commonly used as a measure of 
core inflation.27 These two series track each other very closely with the exception of 2006, 2007, and 
2008.  The CPI has increased by 38.4 percent and 32.3 percent, respectively, for all items and all items 
less food and energy from 1995 to 2008.  Comparing the increase in cable price during the year ending 
January 1, 2006 to the increase in the CPI excluding food and energy over the same period, we find that 
the cable price increase of 3.9 percent was substantially higher than the increase in the “core” inflation 
rate, which was 2.2 percent.  On the basis of the CPI for “all items,” general inflation increased by 3.9 
percent over the 12 months ending January 2006, the same percentage as cable prices rose during that 
time period.  Table 1 displays information on the additional price that consumers must pay above that 
charged for expanded basic service to purchase the most highly subscribed digital tier, including 
equipment, which consists of a digital set-top converter and remote control unit.  Over the 12 months 
ending January 1, 2006, the average price for the digital tier and equipment increased by 1.7 percent, from 
$13.59 to $13.83.
  
24 The percentage of survey responses that require follow-up inquiries may vary over time based on such factors as 
the familiarity of the respondents with the survey and the introduction of new questions to the survey instrument.  
For the 2006 data reflected in this Report, we contacted approximately 45.7 percent of the respondents with requests 
for clarification or correction; for the 2007/2008 data, we contacted approximately 60.0 percent of the respondents 
with such requests.
25 Note that data for January 1, 2006 are similar but not exactly the same in Tables 1 and 1-a.  This is because we 
draw a different random sample of cable operators for these two surveys.  For additional information on our 
sampling methodology, see Appendix A and Attachments 1-a (2006) and 1-b (2007/2008).
26 See Attachment 4, which reports the CPI index for “all items” and “all items less food and energy.”
27 See, e.g., M. F. Bryan, S. G. Cecchetti, and R. L. Wiggins, Efficient Inflation Estimators, National Bureau of 
Economic Research, Working Paper 6183 (1997).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
11
Table 1 
Monthly Prices 2006
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Programming Service
January 1, 2006 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier $14.59 $14.52 $15.09 $13.07 $15.81 $15.96 $15.65
Prior year  (1/1/05) $14.20 $14.14 $14.59 $12.89 $15.19 $15.32 $15.20
Percent change 2.7% 2.6% 3.4% 1.4% 4.1% 4.1% 2.9%
Cable programming service tier $30.67 $30.96 $28.62 $25.38 $30.01 $29.24 $29.07
Prior year  (1/1/05) $29.36 $29.63 $27.48 $23.99 $29.08 $27.86 $27.72
Percent change 4.5% 4.5% 4.1% 5.8% 3.2% 5.0% 4.9%
Expanded basic service $45.26 $45.48 $43.70 $38.45 $45.83 $45.20 $44.73
Prior year  (1/1/05) $43.56 $43.77 $42.07 $36.89 $44.27 $43.18 $42.93
Percent change 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% 3.5% 4.7% 4.2%
2006 price compared to Noncompetitive group -3.9% -15.5% 0.8% -0.6% -1.7%
Digital service tier $13.83 $13.94 $13.05 $13.91 $13.26 $11.13 $11.07
Prior year  (1/1/05) $13.59 $13.70 $12.85 $13.52 $13.12 $11.05 $10.86
Percent change 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 2.9% 1.1% 0.7% 2.0%
2006 price compared to Noncompetitive group -6.4% -0.2% -4.9% -20.2% -20.6%
Sources:  Attachments 2 and 3.
23. As shown in Table 1-a, for the period between January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007, the 
average price for expanded basic service increased by 4.6 percent, from $45.18 to $47.27.  Over that 
period, the price of basic cable service increased by 4.2 percent, from $14.70 to $15.33, and the price of 
cable programming service increased by 4.8 percent, from $30.48 to $31.94.  On average, the prices of 
expanded basic service in noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate regulation 
increased by 4.3 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively, during that period, to $47.49 and $46.28.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
12
Table 1-a
Monthly Prices 2007
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Programming Service
January 1, 2007 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier $15.33 $15.10 $16.37 $14.65 $16.76 $16.99 $17.08
Prior year  (1/1/06) $14.70 $14.57 $15.32 $13.71 $15.59 $16.08 $17.00
Percent change 4.2% 3.6% 6.9% 6.9% 7.6% 5.6% 0.4%
Cable programming service tier $31.94 $32.39 $29.90 $27.94 $30.49 $30.18 $29.85
Prior year  (1/1/06) $30.48 $30.96 $28.28 $26.22 $28.89 $29.01 $27.76
Percent change 4.8% 4.6% 5.8% 6.5% 5.5% 4.0% 7.5%
Expanded basic service $47.27 $47.49 $46.28 $42.59 $47.25 $47.17 $46.93
Prior year  (1/1/06) $45.18 $45.53 $43.60 $39.93 $44.48 $45.09 $44.77
Percent change 4.6% 4.3% 6.1% 6.7% 6.2% 4.6% 4.8%
2007 price compared to Noncompetitive group -2.6% -10.3% -0.5% -0.7% -1.2%
Digital service tier $13.00 $13.04 $12.82 $13.57 $12.84 $11.47 $12.58
Prior year  (1/1/06) $12.55 $12.50 $12.76 $13.28 $12.88 $11.29 $12.46
Percent change 3.6% 4.3% 0.5% 2.2% -0.3% 1.6% 1.0%
2007 price compared to Noncompetitive group -1.7% 4.0% -1.6% -12.0% -3.6%
Sources:  Attachments 2-a and 3-a.   
24. As shown in Table 1-b, for the period between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, the 
average price for expanded basic service increased by 5.0 percent, from $47.27 to $49.65.  Over that 
period, the price of basic cable service increased by 5.1 percent, from $15.33 to $16.11, and the price of 
cable programming service increased by 5.0 percent, from $31.94 to $33.54.  On average, the prices of 
expanded basic service in noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate regulation 
increased by 5.2 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, during that period, to $49.97 and $48.19.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
13
Table 1-b
Monthly Prices 2008
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Programming Service
January 1, 2008 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier $16.11 $15.83 $17.37 $16.06 $17.64 $17.81 $18.25
Prior year  (1/1/07) $15.33 $15.10 $16.37 $14.65 $16.76 $16.99 $17.08
Percent change 5.1% 4.8% 6.1% 9.6% 5.2% 4.8% 6.9%
Cable programming service tier $33.54 $34.14 $30.82 $28.86 $31.23 $31.84 $31.55
Prior year  (1/1/07) $31.94 $32.39 $29.90 $27.94 $30.49 $30.18 $29.85
Percent change 5.0% 5.4% 3.1% 3.3% 2.4% 5.5% 5.7%
Expanded basic service $49.65 $49.97 $48.19 $44.92 $48.87 $49.65 $49.80
Prior year  (1/1/07) $47.27 $47.49 $46.28 $42.59 $47.25 $47.17 $46.93
Percent change 5.0% 5.2% 4.1% 5.5% 3.4% 5.3% 6.1%
2008 price compared to Noncompetitive group -3.6% -10.1% -2.2% -0.6% -0.3%
Digital service tier $14.01 $14.16 $13.34 $14.27 $13.16 $12.59 $13.40
Prior year  (1/1/07) $13.00 $13.04 $12.82 $13.57 $12.84 $11.47 $12.58
Percent change 7.8% 8.6% 4.0% 5.2% 2.5% 9.7% 6.6%
2008 price compared to Noncompetitive group -5.8% 0.8% -7.1% -11.1% -5.4%
Sources:  Attachments 2-b and 3-b.  
25. Tables 1, 1-a, and 1-b also show the percentage differences between prices charged for 
expanded basic service by cable operators in communities relieved from rate regulation overall and in the 
four subgroups of these operators, compared with prices charged by cable operators in noncompetitive 
communities.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, respectively, the prices 
charged in communities relieved from rate regulation overall were 3.9 percent, 2.6 percent, and 3.6 
percent lower than the prices charged in noncompetitive communities.  The price difference varied by 
subgroup, however.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, respectively, prices 
averaged 15.5 percent lower, 10.3 percent lower, and 10.1 percent lower for the subgroup with the 
presence of a second cable operator compared to the prices that prevailed in noncompetitive communities 
as of those dates.  These percentage differentials were notably larger than the differentials present in the 
three other competitive subgroups on those dates.  For example, as of January 1, 2008, for the other three 
competitive subgroups, prices were 2.2 percent lower, 0.6 percent lower, and 0.3 percent lower, 
respectively, in communities deemed competitive by virtue of DBS penetration, the presence of a wireless 
MVPD, and a cable operator having met the low penetration test.  Small percentage differentials prevailed 
for those three subgroups for January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007. 
26. For all three years, cable prices decrease substantially when a second cable operator 
enters the market.  None of the other bases for findings of effective competition appears to be restraining 
the level of prices to the same degree as competition from a second wire-based cable operator.  Moreover, 
it does not appear from these results that competition from DBS effectively constrains cable prices.  In 
fact, the prices charged for expanded basic service by the subgroup of communities relieved from rate 
regulation on the basis of the presence of a DBS competitor were roughly similar (i.e., plus or minus less 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
14
than one percentage point), on average, as of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007, than the prices 
charged in noncompetitive communities.  They were, however, between 2 percent and 3 percent lower as 
of January 1, 2008.28  
B. Weighted Average Cable Prices
27. Previous cable price reports have interpreted the price of expanded basic service as the 
most relevant price of cable service.  While we continue to report and analyze the price of expanded basic 
service, for the first time we also report a new measure of cable prices:  the “weighted average price of 
cable television service.”  This price is given by the price of expanded basic service plus the price 
(including equipment) of the most highly subscribed digital tier, with the digital price weighted by the 
percentage of expanded basic cable subscribers that take the digital tier.  The reason we do so is simple:  
as of January 1, 2008, more than half of all cable subscribers purchased the most popular digital service 
offered by cable systems.  Digital service take rates increased from zero in 1995 to 61.0 percent of 
expanded basic cable subscribers by January 2008.  It therefore is important to both measure the price of 
that service and analyze the impact of its purchase on the amount a household pays for cable service.  The 
weighted average price of cable service does just that.29
28. The weighted average price of cable service has grown from $22.35 in 1995 to $52.26 in 
2006, an increase of 133.8 percent; to $54.73 in 2007, an increase of 144.9 percent over the 1995 price; 
and to $58.80 in 2008, an increase of 163.1 percent.  This is more than four times faster than the increase 
in prices for other goods and services as measured by the CPI.  This is illustrated by Chart 3 below.
  
28 As shown in Tables 1, 1-a, and 1-b, average prices charged for expanded basic by operators in the DBS subgroup 
were 0.8 percent higher, 0.5 percent lower, and 2.2 percent lower than the noncompetitive group, respectively, as of 
January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008.   
29 In particular, it measures the average amount a household that subscribes to expanded basic service pays for 
expanded basic plus digital cable services.  For some households, this will be just the expanded basic price (as they 
choose not to purchase a digital service).  For others, it will be the expanded basic plus the digital price.  The 
average of these two types of households will therefore be the expanded basic price plus the digital price weighted 
by the share of households that purchase digital service.  This price could equally well be called the average 
household expenditure on expanded basic plus digital cable services (among those households that take expanded 
basic service).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
15
Chart 3
Weighted Average Cable Price and the CPI, 1995-2008 
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Percent Change
Weighted Average Cable Price
CPI, All Items
CPI (All Items)
2008 
$58.80
1995
$22.35
29. Table 2 below gives details concerning the increase in the weighted average cable price 
from 1995 to 2008.  From 1995 to 2008, the price of expanded basic service increased from $22.35 to 
$49.65.  In 2008, the price for the basic digital tier including a converter and remote control was $14.01.30
 Table 2
Weighted Average Cable Price, 1995-2008
Digital Price Index, 1995 = 100
Date Expanded Basic Price Price Share Weighted Cable Price Expanded 
Basic Price
Weighted 
Cable Price
Jul. 1995 $22.35 --- --- $22.35 100.0 100.0
Jul. 1996 $24.28 --- --- $24.28 108.6 108.6
Jul. 1997 $26.31 --- --- $26.31 117.7 117.7
Jul. 1998 $27.88 $10.70 1.2% $28.01 124.7 125.3
Jul. 1999 $28.94 $9.49 5.4% $29.45 129.5 131.8
Jul. 2000 $31.22 $8.42 8.4% $31.93 139.7 142.9
Jul. 2001 $33.75 $11.58 17.6% $35.79 151.0 160.1
Jul. 2002 $36.47 $10.12 27.1% $39.21 163.2 175.4
Jan. 2003 $38.95 $10.08 33.4% $42.32 174.3 189.4
Jan. 2004 $41.04 $10.72 39.6% $45.29 183.6 202.6
Jan. 2005 $43.04 $12.99 41.6% $48.44 192.6 216.7
Jan. 2006 $45.26 $13.83 47.7% $52.26 202.5 233.8
Jan. 2007 $47.27 $13.00 52.3% $54.73 211.5 244.9
Jan. 2008 $49.65 $14.01 61.0% $58.80 222.1 263.1
Change, 1995-2008 122.1% --- --- 163.1% 122.1% 163.1%
Sources: Attachments 4 and 5.
  
30 Data for digital service were not collected prior to 1998 because that service was in a start-up phase prior to 1998.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
16
30. The comparison between sample groups is similar for the weighted average price of 
cable service as for expanded basic.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, 
respectively, prices averaged 4.8 percent lower, 2.6 percent lower, and 4.1 percent lower in communities 
relieved from rate regulation than in noncompetitive communities, and for the second cable operator 
subgroup, were 14.7 percent, 9.8 percent, and 10.3 percent lower than they were in noncompetitive 
communities.
Chart 4
Weighted Average Cable Price
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2006
$44.86
$52.29$52.58 $50.75 $49.43
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS  
Competition
Wire less     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
Chart 4-a
Weighted Average Cable Price
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2007
$49.58$54.79$55.00 $53.90 $53.55
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS  
Competition
Wire less     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
Chart 4-b
Weighted Average Cable Price
by Basis for Finding of Effective Competition, January 1, 2008
$53.12$57.57$59.25 $58.54 $57.94
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
No Finding of
Competition
DBS  
Competition
Wire less     
MVPD
Low Cable
Penetration
Second        
Cable Operator
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
17
C. Price Per Viewing Hour
31. In 2005, the Commission determined that it should no longer include price per channel 
data because it does not reflect actual prices offered to consumers.  Cable operators do not permit 
consumers to purchase channels that are included in expanded basic service on an individual basis, nor do 
they provide refunds to consumers who opt to have certain channels blocked.  (If cable operators did offer 
consumers the option to purchase channels individually, it would be appropriate to consider the prices 
charged to consumers for those channels.)  Further, the use of the average rate per channel as a proxy for 
quality of service measurements implies that consumers value recently added channels the same as 
previously added channels.  For example, the use of these data as a proxy for quality adjustments would 
suggest that quality adjusted prices would be unchanged if there were a 10 percent increase in monthly 
cable rates and a 10 percent increase in the number of channels; however, this does not take into account 
how consumers might value the additional channels.  
32. In response to the release of the 2005 Report on Cable Industry Prices (“2005 Report”), 
the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”) sent a letter to the Chairman asking 
him to disclose data showing the pricing of cable’s multichannel video services on a per-channel basis.31  
NCTA stated that is important to analyze prices not only on an inflation-adjusted basis but also on a 
quality-adjusted basis.  NCTA noted that one way to measure quality changes is to calculate price per 
channel.  NCTA concedes that “a per-channel analysis may be an imperfect mechanism” by which to 
calculate quality-adjusted prices.  NCTA recommended, rather, that changes in the quality or value of 
cable services be measured based on changes in the amount of usage of the service by cable customers, or 
Price Per Viewing Hour (“PPVH”).32 NCTA stated that PPVH can be calculated by dividing the price of 
the service by the amount of time that an average household spends watching the service.  NCTA states 
that, when measured in this quality-adjusted way, the real price of expanded basic cable service has 
steadily declined in recent years from 28.4 cents per viewing hour in 2002 to 26.3 cents per viewing hour 
in 2005.33
33. NCTA’s conclusion that prices have declined in real terms when measured using PPVH 
is critically flawed.  Even if PPVH were a better measure of quality-adjusted prices than price per 
channel, NCTA did not calculate the PPVH correctly, erring twice in their calculations.  First, NCTA 
failed to include the (weighted) price of digital service in their numerator, yet digital channels are 
included in Cable Viewing Hours in their denominator.  Second, NCTA included the price of basic 
service in the numerator, but excluded broadcast channels, which are carried on the basic service tier, 
from the denominator.  Correcting these errors yields the values reported here.  In particular, one must 
ensure that the price of the services in the numerator is matched to the viewing hours of those same 
services in the denominator, and that both are measured for the same set of households.  Viewing hours 
reported by Nielsen Media Research are commonly split into broadcast viewing, ad-supported cable 
viewing, and premium pay viewing and are reported for broadcast-only households, “Cable Plus” 
households, Cable Plus with pay households (i.e., Cable Plus households that also subscribe to at least 
  
31 NCTA letter (“Letter”) of January 4, 2007 at 1 (MM Docket No. 06-266).
32 Letter at  2.
33 Letter at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
18
one pay service), and all households.34 For the purposes of this report, we are most interested in ad-
supported cable viewing among cable-plus households.35
34. The services offered by cable systems differ along similar lines.  The primary networks 
offered on Basic Service are broadcast networks, while the primary networks offered on cable 
programming and digital service tiers are ad-supported cable networks.36 Chart 5 below decomposes the 
weighted average cable price from Chart 3 into the average price of basic service and the weighted 
average price of CPST plus digital service between 1997 and 2008.37 Much of the growth in the weighted 
average price of cable service comes from growth in the price of CPST service coupled with growth in the 
price and an increase in subscriber penetration of digital service.
Chart 5
Cable Prices, 1995 - 2008
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Monthly Price
Weighted Average Cable Price
Weighted Average CPST + Digital
Basic Price
$42.69
$58.80
$16.11
Note:  In Chart 5, Weighted Average CPST + Digital and Basic Price are unavailable prior to 1997.
35. The Price Per Viewing Hour Table below reports the values of the prices shown in Chart 
5 as well as average viewing hours between 1997 and 2008 for ad-supported cable networks among Cable 
  
34 The “Cable Plus” Nielsen universe is defined as “the households in the Total U.S. that can receive cable 
programming via wired cable or other means” (Nielsen Media Research (2004), “National Television Activity 
Report,” Discussion Paper B).  
35 Although the Cable Plus category includes satellite households, it will be a useful measure for our purposes as 
long as average viewing hours are similar for satellite and cable households.
36 See, for example, Tables 5-7.
37 The weighted average price of CPST plus digital service is calculated analogously to the weighted average price 
of cable service:  it is the average price of CPST plus digital service with the price of digital service weighted by the 
share of households that subscribe to digital service.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
19
Plus households.38 It also reports the PPVH of ad-supported cable networks, calculated as the weighted 
average price (per month) of CPST plus digital services divided by the average viewing hours (per month) 
of Cable Plus households.39 The table shows that while household viewing of ad-supported cable 
networks has grown considerably, rising 59.4 percent between 1997 and 2008, prices for those networks 
(weighted CPST + digital price tiers) have risen even faster, by 190.8 percent over the same period.  As a 
result, prices per viewing hour of cable networks have grown considerably, from 13.9 cents/hour in 1997 
to 25.3 cents/hour in 2008, an increase of 82.4 percent.
Price Per Viewing Hour Table
1997-2008
Price Index,
1997 = 100
Date
Weighted 
Cable 
Price
Basic 
Price
Weighted 
CPST + 
Digital 
Price
Cable 
Television 
Viewing
Hours/Week
Cable 
Television 
Viewing 
Hours/Month
Price 
Per 
Viewing 
Hour
Weighted 
CPST + 
Dig Price
PPVH
Jul. 1997 $26.31 $11.63 $14.68 24.4 105.9 $0.139 100.0 100.0
Jul. 1998 $28.01 $12.06 $15.95 26.2 113.6 $0.140 108.6 101.2
Jul. 1999 $29.45 $12.58 $16.87 26.8 116.4 $0.145 114.9 104.6
Jul. 2000 $31.93 $12.84 $19.09 28.1 122.0 $0.157 130.0 112.9
Jul. 2001 $35.79 $12.84 $22.95 29.8 129.6 $0.177 156.3 127.7
Jul. 2002 $39.21 $13.11 $26.10 31.8 138.0 $0.189 177.8 136.5
Jan. 2003 $42.32 $13.45 $28.87 34.0 147.7 $0.195 196.6 141.0
Jan. 2004 $45.29 $13.80 $31.49 35.6 154.8 $0.203 214.5 146.7
Jan. 2005 $48.44 $14.30 $34.14 37.7 163.7 $0.209 232.6 150.4
Jan. 2006 $52.26 $14.59 $37.67 38.6 167.9 $0.224 256.6 161.8
Jan. 2007 $54.73 $15.33 $39.40 38.6 167.7 $0.235 268.4 169.5
Jan. 2008 $58.80 $16.11 $42.69 38.9 168.8 $0.253 290.8 182.4
Change, 
1997-2008 123.5% 38.5% 190.8% 59.4% 59.4% 82.4% 190.8% 82.4%
Sources: Various price surveys; Nielsen
36. Chart 6 summarizes trends in cable prices between 1997 and 2008 and compares them to 
prices of other goods, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.40 It shows that, on an unadjusted basis, 
consumers are paying 123.5 percent more for cable service in 2008 than they were paying in 1997 and 
82.4 percent more on a per-viewing-hour basis.  Both far exceed the 31.6 percent increase in the CPI over 
the same period.
  
38 The viewing hours come from Nielsen by way of the Cablevision Advertising Bureau.  Values from 1997 to 2001 
are from Wildman, S. (2003) “Assessing Quality-Adjusted Changes in the Real Price of Basic Cable Service,” 
Discussion paper, Michigan State University (citing CAB); values from 2002 to 2007 are from the CAB website at 
http://www.onetvworld.org/main/cab/fasttrax/average-time-spent-with-c.shtml (accessed March 4, 2008).  Values 
for 2008 are, from Nielsen, the average ad-supported cable viewing among Cable Plus households for October 1, 
2007 – March 30, 2008.
39 Viewing hours per month were calculated as the average viewing hours per week divided by seven, times 365, 
divided by 12 (i.e., converting viewing hours per week to viewing hours per month).
40 As mentioned above, data for digital service were not collected prior to 1998 because that service was in a start-up 
phase prior to 1998.  On that basis, we exclude 1995-1997 prices from this comparison.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
20
Chart 6
Trends in Cable Prices, 1997-2008 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Percent Increase
Weighted Average Cable Price
Price Per Viewing Hour
CPI - All Items
82.4%
123.5%
31.6%
D. Programming Expense for Expanded Basic
37. Tables 3, 3-a, and 3-b display information on programming expenses incurred by cable 
operators related to the provision of expanded basic service, stated on an average monthly basis per 
subscriber.41 These expenses include the increases in fees for existing programming as well as additional 
fees for new programming added during the year.  Programming expenses increased on an average 
monthly basis by an estimated $0.88 per subscriber, or 6.9 percent, from 2004 to 2005; by an estimated 
$1.13, or 8.3 percent, from 2005 to 2006; and by an estimated $1.40, or 9.5 percent, from 2006 to 2007.  
Increases in programming expenses were equivalent to 52 percent of the overall increase in price for 
expanded basic service during the year ending January 1, 2006; 54 percent during the year ending January 
1, 2007; and 59 percent during the year ending January 1, 2008.  These findings are illustrated in Charts 7 
and 8 below.
  
41 Programming expense per subscriber, as reported herein, equals the difference in the monthly programming 
expense per subscriber for expanded basic service, comparing year 2004 to year 2005 (shown in Table 3), year 2005 
to year 2006 (shown in Table 3-a), and year 2006 to year 2007 (shown in Table 3-b). These measures are 
approximations, calculated by dividing the programming cost in each year by the number of end-of-year basic cable 
service subscribers, and dividing by 12 (months).  The programming expense numbers are for the previous year 
rather than the survey year because survey questionnaires are sent too early in the year for cable operators to be able 
to provide programming expense information for the survey year.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
21
Table 3
Change in Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber, 2004-2005
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Expanded Basic Service
2004-2005 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LPTest
Programming expense, year 2005 $13.41 $13.32 $14.10 $14.83 $14.43 $11.50 $14.94
Programming expense, year 2004 $12.54 $12.46 $13.09 $13.76 $13.38 $10.75 $13.64 
Change in programming expense $0.88 $0.86 $1.02 $1.07 $1.05 $0.75 $1.30 
Change in expanded basic price *  $1.70 $1.71 $1.64 $1.56 $1.56 $2.01 $1.80 
Expense to price change ** 52% 50% 62% 68% 67% 37% 72%
Sources:  Attachment 7 and Table 1.    * January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006.  ** Equals change in expense divided by change in 
price.   Change in expense may not equal the difference in years, due to rounding in source data.  
Table 3-a
Change in Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber, 2005-2006
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Expanded Basic Service
2005-2006 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Programming expense, year 2006 $14.74 $14.73 $14.77 $15.39 $14.91 $12.39 $15.51 
Programming expense, year 2005 $13.61 $13.60 $13.64 $14.00 $13.79 $11.40 $15.41 
Change in programming expense $1.13 $1.13 $1.13 $1.39 $1.12 $0.99 $0.10 
Change in expanded basic price *  $2.09 $1.96 $2.68 $2.66 $2.78 $2.08 $2.16 
Expense to price change ** 54% 58% 42% 52% 40% 48% 5%
Sources:  Attachment 7-a and Table 1-a.    * January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007.  ** Equals change in expense divided by change 
in price.   Change in expense may not equal the difference in years, due to rounding in source data.  
Table 3-b
Change in Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber, 2006-2007
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Expanded Basic Service
2006-2007 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Programming expense, year 2007 $16.14 $16.09 $16.34 $17.21 $16.40 $14.05 $16.77 
Programming expense, year 2006 $14.74 $14.73 $14.77 $15.39 $14.91 $12.39 $15.51 
Change in programming expense $1.40 $1.36 $1.57 $1.82 $1.49 $1.66 $1.27 
Change in expanded basic price *  $2.38 $2.48 $1.91 $2.33 $1.62 $2.48 $2.87 
Expense to price change ** 59% 55% 82% 78% 93% 67% 44%
Sources:  Attachment 7-b and Table 1-b.    * January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008.  ** Equals change in expense divided by change 
in price.   Change in expense may not equal the difference in years, due to rounding in source data.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
22
Chart 7
Percentage of Price Change Attributable to Increase in Programming Expense
Year 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007
 
52%
 
54%
 
59%
 
Source:  Tables 3, 3-a, and 3-b.
Chart 8
Percentage Increase in Programming Expense
Expanded Basic Service
8.3%
6.9%
9.5%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
Year 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007
E. Family Tier
38. The surveys sought data on programming offered in a so-called “family tier,” which was 
defined as a package of programming that is marketed by cable operators as a substitute for the larger, 
most highly subscribed cable programming service tier.  A number of cable operators have begun offering 
such a tier as an alternative targeted toward subscribers who may object to some of the programming on 
the most highly subscribed tier.  Based on the survey responses, the typical family tier includes some, but 
not all, of the channels carried on the most highly subscribed tier.  Further, because the family tier is 
almost always a digital tier, it typically includes some, but not all, of the channels carried on digital tiers.  
The typical family tier requires use of a digital converter and remote control or other digital gateway.  
Some cable operators bundle this digital equipment in a package with the family tier, while in other cases 
equipment is leased separately.  Thus, because the family tier and equipment prices cannot always be 
shown as separate components, the family tier prices shown below include the price of associated 
equipment.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
23
39. As of July 1, 2006, 46 percent of all basic cable subscribers were offered a family tier of 
programming.  As of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, 45 percent and 48 percent, respectively, of 
subscribers were offered that tier.  Of the 46 percent of subscribers who were offered a family tier on 
January 1, 2006, less than one percent of those subscribers actually subscribed to a family tier.42 The 
number of subscribers to the family tier was still less than one percent as of January 1, 2007 and January 
1, 2008.  Tables 4, 4-a, and 4-b display the average prices subscribers must pay to purchase a family tier 
package, including the family programming tier, equipment, and basic cable service.  As of July 1, 2006, 
the average monthly price for this service package was $32.20; as of January 1, 2007, the average 
monthly price was $31.15; and as of January 1, 2008 the average monthly price was $31.92.  On average, 
operators offered 39.3 channels, including the channels on the basic service tier, in this package as of July 
1, 2006, and also 39.3 channels as of January 1, 2008.  (The survey did not collect channel information 
for family tiers for 2007.)  By comparison, as of January 1, 2006, for example, the average price for
expanded basic service was $45.26 (Table 1), excluding equipment, and operators offered an average of 
71.0 channels (Table 6) for that service.  Thus, the price of the family tier (including basic cable service 
and equipment) was only 28.8 percent less as of January 1, 2006 than the price of expanded basic service 
on that date, but the number of channels offered was 44.6 percent less.  On January 1, 2008 the price of 
the family tier (including basic cable service and equipment) was 32.5 percent less than the price of 
expanded basic service on that date, while the number of channels offered was 45.9 percent less.  In 
addition, family tiers generally exclude some of the most expensive programming, like ESPN, that is 
included in the cable programming service tier.
Table 4 
Family Tier of Programming
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Family tier & equipment price $19.62 $19.65 $19.34 $19.96 $20.02 $17.93 $19.11 
Basic cable service tier price $12.58 $12.39 $14.25 $12.24 $13.79 $16.54 $14.45 
Total price $32.20 $32.04 $33.66 $32.21 $33.99 $34.47 $33.56 
Family tier channels 14.4 14.4 15.0 14.8 15.4 14.7 15.4 
Basic cable service channels 24.9 25.1 23.3 25.4 21.7 23.5 22.1 
Total channels 39.3 39.4 38.3 40.2 37.1 38.2 37.5 
Source: 2006 survey. 
  
42 While this low percentage may in part reflect the newness of these offerings, an examination of the data indicate 
that they generally lack sports programming like ESPN and thus, many families may not consider the family tier to 
be a good alternative to the cable programming tier.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
24
Table 4-a
Family Tier of Programming
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Family tier & equipment price $18.35 $18.42 $17.87 $18.48 $19.05 $15.05 $18.71 
Basic cable service tier price $12.80 $12.62 $13.97 $12.70 $13.13 $16.68 $13.75 
Total price $31.15 $31.04 $31.84 $31.18 $32.18 $31.73 $32.46 
Source:  2007/2008 survey. 
Table 4-b
Family Tier of Programming
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Family tier & equipment price $18.33 $18.42 $17.73 $18.69 $18.82 $14.76 $16.09 
Basic cable service tier price $13.59 $13.36 $15.17 $14.02 $14.46 $17.67 $14.99 
Total price $31.92 $31.78 $32.90 $32.71 $33.27 $32.44 $31.08 
Family tier channels 14.3 14.3 14.2 16.0 13.4 14.2 11.9 
Basic cable service tier  channels 25.0 24.8 26.8 24.5 30.8 21.1 28.9 
Total channels 39.3 39.1 41.0 40.0 44.2 35.3 40.8 
Source:  2007/2008 survey. 
F. Programming Sold on an Individual Basis
40. The surveys asked whether cable operators sold programming networks on an individual 
basis as of July 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008.43 Overall, 46 percent, 37 percent, and 39 
percent of subscribers in our samples were offered one or more channels on an individual basis as of July 
1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, respectively.  The vast majority of these individual 
channel offerings are international networks produced outside the United States that would otherwise 
likely be found on a themed mini tier, such as a Spanish language tier.  In addition, cable operators 
generally charged a price for these channels that is consistent with prices charged for premium channels.  
The survey found that, as of July 1, 2006, cable operators offered an average of 6.3 such channels, 
calculated over all operators offering channels on an individual basis, at an average monthly price of 
  
43 The questionnaire asked operators “As of 1/01/07 and 1/01/08, did you offer any networks on an individual 
basis?”  The accompanying instructions stated: “If yes, complete Columns G through K in the Channel Lineup 
Section of this questionnaire.  Do not report cable network ‘multiplexes’ (for example, HBO multiplex) but do 
report HBO, for example, if sold as a stand-alone channel.”  Some operators reported multiplexed networks, as well 
as seasonal or part-time networks.  The information about these multiplexes of networks was not included in our 
presentation of results.      
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
25
$13.29 per channel.44 As of January 1, 2007, 6.1 channels were offered individually at an average 
monthly price of $13.14 for each channel; as of January 1, 2008, operators offered 6.0 channels 
individually at an average monthly price of $13.16 for each channel.
41. As of July 1, 2006, cable operators in seven communities in the survey (less than one 
percent of the sample) offered on an individual basis networks that are generally included in the standard 
expanded basic service programming tier, or on a digital tier.  These networks were offered for less than 
$5.00 each.  In January 2007, cable operators in 23 communities offered such networks individually; in 
January 2008, cable operators in 22 communities offered such networks individually.  No operator offered 
more than two such networks.  The specific networks identified by these cable operators as being offered 
on an individual basis were the Golf Channel, Superstation WGN, Turner Classic Movies (“TCM”), and 
TBS in 2006, and, in addition, FSN South, Court TV, MoviePlex, Independent Film Channel, and AMC, 
as of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008.45 Prices ranged from $1.00 to $4.95 per channel in all years.  
On average, cable operators offered these channels at a price of $2.12, $3.48, and $3.59, respectively, in 
2006, 2007, and 2008.  The 2006 survey questionnaire did not ask what cable services a subscriber must 
have purchased in order to be able to buy these individual networks.  Follow-up information from the 
specific respondents, however, indicated that subscribers must purchase basic service before they may 
add individual channels, and for channels offered as a digital signal, subscribers must also obtain a digital 
box.  This is generally true as of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, but in some instances subscribers 
also were required to purchase expanded basic service in order to purchase networks individually. 
G. Distribution of Channels
42. Tables 5 and 5-b show the average number of channels offered on the basic cable 
service tier as of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008.  (There is no Table 5-a because the survey did not 
collect channel information for 2007.)  Basic cable service averaged 24.8 channels as of January 1, 2006 
and 26.7 channels as of January 1, 2008.  The number of channels offered varied only slightly among the 
sample groups.  The tables divide these channels into four categories:  (1) local broadcast stations; (2) 
public, educational, and governmental access (“PEG”) channels; (3) commercial leased access channels; 
and (4) all other channels.  
Table 5
Distribution of Channels on the Basic Cable Service Tier
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Category 
January 1, 2006 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Local broadcast stations 12.2 12.4 10.8 11.1 10.6 10.4 12.8
PEG channels 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.4
Commercial leased access 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.3
Other channels 8.6 8.5 9.8 9.1 10.3 10.0 5.7
Total 24.8 24.9 24.0 23.4 24.7 23.5 21.2
Source:  Attachment 8.
  
44 This average was calculated over all operators offering channels on an individual basis, on a per operator basis.
45 Cable operators not included in our survey may offer other networks on an individual basis.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
26
Table 5-b
Distribution of Channels on the Basic Cable Service Tier
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Category 
January 1, 2008 Overall Non-
Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Local broadcast stations 12.7 12.7 12.9 11.4 13.4 13.7 11.6
PEG channels 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.2 1.7
Commercial leased access 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.9
Other channels 10.0 9.8 10.9 9.9 12.3 5.9 6.9
Total 26.7 26.8 25.9 25.3 26.8 22.7 23.3
Source:  Attachment 8-b.
43. Tables 6, 6-a, and 6-b display the average number of expanded basic channels offered to 
subscribers as of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008 by the programming service tier:  
(1) basic cable service and (2) cable programming service.  As of January 1, 2006, cable operators offered 
an average of 24.8 basic cable service channels and 46.2 cable programming service channels, for an 
average total of 71.0 expanded basic channels.  These 71.0 channels represent an increase of less than one 
percent (0.7 percent) compared with the number of expanded basic channels offered a year earlier.  As of 
January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, respectively, the number of expanded basic channels had increased 
to 72.6 and 72.8 channels.  As of January 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008, respectively, 
expanded basic service averaged 70.6 channels, 72.5 channels, and 72.8 channels in noncompetitive 
communities, and 74.0, 73.0, and 73.0 channels in communities relieved from rate regulation.  
Table 6 
Expanded Basic Service Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier 24.8 24.9 24.0 23.4 24.7 23.5 21.2
Cable programming service tier 46.2 45.7 50.0 51.5 49.2 50.2 49.6
Expanded basic service 71.0 70.6 74.0 74.9 73.9 73.7 70.8
Prior year (1/1/05) 70.5 70.0 73.9 74.1 74.1 73.7 70.5
Percent Change 0.7% 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% -0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
Source:  Attachment 9.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
27
Table 6-a 
Expanded Basic Service Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier 26.3 26.3 25.9 24.6 26.9 23.7 23.1
Cable programming service tier 46.3 46.1 47.2 50.9 45.4 50.2 47.8
Expanded basic service 72.6 72.5 73.0 75.5 72.3 73.9 70.8
Prior year (1/1/05) 71.5 71.1 73.4 74.5 73.3 73.6 70.8
Percent Change 1.5% 2.0% -0.5% 1.4% -1.4% 0.5% 0.0%
Source:  Attachment 9-a.
Table 6-b
Expanded Basic Service Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Basic cable service tier 26.7 26.8 25.9 25.3 26.8 22.7 23.3
Cable programming service tier 46.2 46.0 47.1 50.8 45.6 49.1 46.9
Expanded basic service 72.8 72.8 73.0 76.1 72.4 71.8 70.1
Prior year (1/1/05) 72.6 72.5 73.0 75.5 72.3 73.9 70.8
Percent Change 0.4% 0.5% -0.1% 0.7% 0.2% -2.9% -1.0%
Source:  Attachment 9-b.
44. Tables 7, 7-a, and 7-b show the number of channels offered to subscribers as of January 
1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008 on the most-highly subscribed digital tier.  The tables 
divide digital channels into two categories:  (1) high definition (“HD”) broadcast simulcasts, and (2) 
channels on the most highly subscribed digital tier.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 
1, 2008, service on the most-highly subscribed digital tier averaged 40.6, 37.5, and 40.4 channels, 
respectively, and varied only slightly between the two sample groups.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
28
Table 7
Digital Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
HD local broadcast stations 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.6 3.5 5.2 2.5
Digital Tier 40.6 41.0 37.7 38.4 39.7 29.6 35.4
Source:  Attachment 10.  Note:  HD local broadcast refer to stations that can be viewed in both standard and HD format.  Digital 
tier refers to the most popular (highly subscribed) digital service tier.
Table 7-a 
Digital Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
HD local broadcast stations 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.2 6.5 3.6
Digital Tier 37.5 37.1 39.3 40.5 39.7 35.7 38.5
Source:  Attachment 10-a.  Note:  HD local broadcast refer to stations that can be viewed in both standard and HD format.  
Digital tier refers to the most popular (highly subscribed) digital service tier.
Table 7-b 
Digital Channels
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
HD local broadcast stations 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.0 7.3 3.9
Digital Tier 40.4 40.1 41.4 42.0 42.1 37.8 37.7
Source:  Attachment 10-b.  Note:  HD local broadcast refer to stations that can be viewed in both standard and HD format.  
Digital tier refers to the most popular (highly subscribed) digital service tier.
H. Subscriber Equipment 
45. Tables 8, 8-a, and 8-b show that over the 12 months ending January 1, 2006; January 1, 
2007; and January 1, 2008, the average monthly price charged for leased analog equipment to receive 
programming services (consisting of an addressable set-top converter and remote control unit) increased 
by 5.4 percent, declined by 2.5 percent, and declined by 9.9 percent, respectively, to $4.86, $4.28, and 
$3.86.  For digital equipment, prices increased by 2.7 percent, declined by 0.6 percent, and declined by 
4.1 percent, to $5.19, $5.38, and $5.16, respectively, as of the same three dates.  For HD equipment, 
prices rose by 2.0 percent, by 3.2 percent, and 4.5 percent, to $7.11, $7.86, and $8.22.  The monthly price 
to lease a CableCARD increased by an average of 3.0 percent to $1.19 in the year ending January 1, 2006; 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
29
by 13.3 percent to $1.25 in the year ending January 1, 2007; and by 15.3 percent to $1.44 in the year 
ending January 1, 2008.
Table 8
Monthly Equipment Prices
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Analog equipment $4.86 $4.81 $5.22 $4.46 $5.54 $5.29 $5.20 
Change from prior year 5.4% 5.4% 5.7% 3.8% 7.5% -1.6% 19.7%
Digital equipment $5.19 $5.14 $5.55 $5.85 $5.48 $5.40 $4.96 
Change from prior year 2.7% 2.3% 5.5% 13.1% 3.7% 0.1% 1.8%
HD equipment $7.11 $7.08 $7.31 $7.75 $7.45 $6.09 $7.71 
Change from prior year 2.0% 2.1% 0.9% 0.1% 1.4% 0.3% -2.4%
CableCARD $1.19 $1.14 $1.56 $1.76 $1.64 $0.94 $1.76 
Change from prior year 3.0% 3.7% -1.4% -6.8% 0.0% 3.0% 0.3%
Sources:  Attachment 11.  
Table 8-a
Monthly Equipment Prices
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Analog equipment $4.28 $4.17 $4.81 $4.60 $4.86 $5.01 $3.81 
Change from prior year -2.5% -1.7% -6.7% -0.7% -9.0% -6.1% -2.1%
Digital equipment $5.38 $5.34 $5.58 $5.84 $5.45 $6.47 $5.20 
Change from prior year -0.6% -0.3% -2.1% -3.0% -1.7% 0.0% -3.9%
HD equipment $7.86 $7.85 $7.93 $7.98 $8.21 $6.20 $7.99 
Change from prior year 3.2% 3.2% 3.0% 0.3% 4.1% 0.0% 0.3%
CableCARD $1.25 $1.16 $1.65 $1.84 $1.71 $1.09 $1.26 
Change from prior year 13.3% 13.9% 9.4% 9.5% 9.4% 7.3% 0.9%
Sources:  Attachment 11-a.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
30
Table 8-b
Monthly Equipment Prices
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Analog equipment $3.86 $3.75 $4.36 $4.48 $4.49 $3.63 $3.33 
Change from prior year -9.9% -9.9% -9.4% -2.6% -7.7% -27.5% -12.7%
Digital equipment $5.16 $5.10 $5.43 $5.97 $5.19 $6.48 $5.19 
Change from prior year -4.1% -4.5% -2.7% 2.2% -4.8% 0.1% -0.2%
HD equipment $8.22 $8.26 $8.06 $8.03 $8.27 $6.95 $8.04 
Change from prior year 4.5% 5.2% 1.7% 0.7% 0.7% 12.2% 0.6%
CableCARD $1.44 $1.33 $1.90 $2.08 $1.95 $1.42 $1.47 
Change from prior year 15.3% 15.4% 15.4% 13.3% 14.3% 30.6% 17.2%
Sources:  Attachment 11-b.  
I. Service Installation Charges
46. Tables 9, 9-a, and 9-b display the nonrecurring charges that cable television subscribers 
may incur for service installation.  As of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, the 
average charge to install cable service was $45.96, $45.97, and $45.11, respectively, in a residence not 
previously wired for cable, and $32.47, $32.89, and $32.68 in a pre-wired residence (excluding any 
promotional discounts).  Subscribers were charged $28.67, $28.89, and $28.91, respectively, on average, 
for service reconnection.  The average charge to install a CableCARD was $20.47, $22.56, and $23.04, 
respectively, for an existing customer and $22.24, $26.51, and $27.07 for a new customer as of the same 
three dates.
Table 9
Service Installation Charges
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Unwired residence $45.96 $45.99 $45.75 $42.50 $46.01 $49.72 $50.18 
Change from prior year -0.3% -0.5% 1.1% -1.3% 1.8% 2.5% 1.8%
Pre-wired residence $32.47 $32.47 $32.49 $31.60 $33.12 $31.29 $35.54 
Change from prior year -0.3% -0.4% 0.1% -0.3% 1.0% -2.5% 1.4%
Service reconnection $28.67 $28.60 $29.12 $26.52 $30.30 $29.45 $28.79 
Change from prior year -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -1.5% 0.3% -0.1% -0.3%
CableCARD, existing subscriber $20.47 $20.77 $18.30 $16.58 $19.72 $16.57 $16.34 
Change from prior year 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 10.6% 1.3% 3.9% 18.7%
CableCARD, new subscriber $22.24 $22.59 $19.72 $15.87 $22.59 $16.57 $17.41 
Change from prior year 4.9% 5.1% 3.4% 16.1% -0.7% 3.9% 13.1%
Sources:  Attachment 12. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
31
Table 9-a
Service Installation Charges
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Unwired residence $45.97 $45.84 $46.56 $44.09 $46.68 $50.82 $46.23 
Change from prior year 1.2% 0.8% 3.0% 2.5% 3.8% 1.6% -0.3%
Pre-wired residence $32.89 $32.80 $33.33 $31.80 $34.27 $30.66 $33.03 
Change from prior year 1.8% 1.9% 1.3% 2.5% 1.3% -2.5% 0.8%
Service reconnection $28.89 $29.01 $28.38 $27.20 $29.18 $25.66 $28.56 
Change from prior year 2.6% 2.4% 4.1% 6.4% 5.6% -6.8% -1.9%
CableCARD, existing subscriber $22.56 $22.15 $24.37 $19.81 $25.91 $27.48 $15.65 
Change from prior year 3.8% 2.3% 10.1% 8.4% 10.3% 10.0% 4.3%
CableCARD, new subscriber $26.51 $25.76 $29.86 $21.94 $33.00 $31.63 $16.30 
Change from prior year 1.6% -0.6% 10.5% 7.7% 12.5% 1.3% -0.1%
Sources:  Attachment 12-a. 
Table 9-b
Service Installation Charges
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Unwired residence $45.11 $44.86 $46.27 $43.99 $45.80 $53.13 $47.10 
Change from prior year -1.9% -2.2% -0.6% -0.2% -1.9% 4.5% 1.9%
Pre-wired residence $32.68 $32.36 $34.11 $31.68 $34.89 $34.27 $33.83 
Change from prior year -0.7% -1.3% 2.4% -0.4% 1.8% 11.8% 2.4%
Service reconnection $28.91 $28.84 $29.20 $27.45 $29.66 $29.03 $30.82 
Change from prior year 0.0% -0.6% 2.9% 0.9% 1.6% 13.1% 7.9%
CableCARD, existing subscriber $23.04 $22.63 $24.86 $21.26 $25.63 $31.27 $15.40 
Change from prior year 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 7.3% -1.1% 13.8% -1.6%
CableCARD, new subscriber $27.07 $26.29 $30.53 $23.68 $32.79 $35.97 $16.82 
Change from prior year 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 7.9% -0.6% 13.7% 3.2%
Sources:  Attachment 12-b. 
J. System Operating Capacity
47. Tables 10, 10-a, and 10-b show that capacity averaged 749 MHz, 748 MHz, and 759 
MHz, as of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008.  This, in turn, represented 1.8 percent, 
-0.1 percent, and 1.5 percent increases over the previous year, respectively.  By sample group, operators 
in noncompetitive communities had average capacity of 747 MHz, 744 MHz, and 757 MHz (changes of 
1.8 percent, -0.4 percent, and 1.6 percent), and operators in communities relieved from rate regulation had 
average capacity of 765 MHz, 766 MHz, and 772 MHz (increases of 1.4 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.9 
percent) as of the same three dates, respectively. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
32
Table 10
System Operating Capacity (MHz)
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Date
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
January 1, 2006 749 747 765 759 770 761 735
January 1, 2005 736 734 754 756 751 758 729
Percent change 1.8% 1.8% 1.4% 0.4% 2.5% 0.3% 0.9%
Source:  Attachment 13. 
Table 10-a
System Operating Capacity (MHz)
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Date
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
January 1, 2007 748 744 766 766 768 764 740
January 1, 2006 749 747 765 759 770 761 735
Percent change -0.1% -0.4% 0.1% 0.9% -0.3% 0.4% 0.6%
Source:  Attachment 13-a. 
Table 10-b
System Operating Capacity (MHz)
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
Date
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
January 1, 2008 759 757 772 774 776 764 740
January 1, 2007 748 744 766 766 768 764 740
Percent change 1.5% 1.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source:  Attachment 13-b. 
48. Tables 11, 11-a, and 11-b show that as of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 
1, 2008, respectively, 25.4 percent, 25.0 percent, and 30.5 percent of subscribers were served by a system 
with capacity greater than 750 MHz.  About 60 percent of all subscribers (63.9 percent as of January 1, 
2006; 63.6 percent as of January 1, 2007; and 59.1 percent as of January 1, 2008) were served by systems 
that operated at 750 MHz.  Only 10.8 percent, 11.4 percent, and 10.4 percent of subscribers were served 
by systems with operating capacity below 750 MHz on January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 
2008, respectively.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
33
Table 11
Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Above 750 MHz 25.4% 25.5% 24.9% 13.7% 34.4% 9.7% 28.6%
750 MHz 63.9% 63.3% 68.0% 82.1% 56.0% 90.3% 46.4%
331 - 749 MHz 8.7% 8.9% 6.7% 4.2% 8.8% 0.0% 25.0%
220 - 330 MHz 2.1% 2.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Source:  Attachment 13.
Table 11-a
Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Above 750 MHz 25.0% 25.0% 25.5% 24.2% 28.2% 12.1% 23.5%
750 MHz 63.6% 62.4% 69.0% 69.1% 66.7% 87.9% 58.8%
331 - 749 MHz 10.3% 11.4% 5.4% 6.6% 5.1% 0.0% 16.2%
220 - 330 MHz 1.1% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
Source:  Attachment 13-a.
Table 11-b
Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Above 750 MHz 30.5% 29.4% 35.8% 32.9% 41.0% 15.2% 23.5%
750 MHz 59.1% 59.1% 59.0% 61.9% 53.8% 84.8% 58.8%
331 - 749 MHz 9.7% 10.6% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 0.0% 16.2%
220 - 330 MHz 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
Source:  Attachment 13-b.
K. Service Availability and Subscription
49. Tables 12, 12-a, and 12-b display the percentages of cable subscribers that were offered 
advanced services as of January 1, 2006; January 1, 2007; and January 1, 2008, and the percentages that 
subscribed to those services at each of those dates.  Table 12 shows, for example, that as of January 1, 
2006, 98.3 percent of subscribers to basic cable service could purchase digital video programming and 
41.8 percent subscribed to that service.  For HD video programming, 91.9 percent of subscribers were 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
34
offered that service and 6.7 percent subscribed.  Further, 85.5 percent of subscribers were offered one or 
more HD simulcasts of local broadcast stations;46 96.9 percent of subscribers were offered Internet access, 
and 34.8 percent subscribed; and 61.4 percent were offered cable telephony, with 3.3 percent of 
subscribers taking circuit-switched telephony and another 3.4 percent taking voice over Internet protocol 
(“VOIP”) telephony.  As shown in Table 12, subscribers in communities relieved from rate regulation 
were generally offered these additional services at slightly higher rates than subscribers in noncompetitive 
communities. Similar percentages prevailed as of January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, as shown in 
Tables 12-a and 12-b, although the percentage of subscribers offered telephony service increased 
significantly over that period, rising from 61.4 percent as of January 1, 2006 to 88.8 percent as of January 
1, 2008.  The percentage subscribing to telephony service also increased significantly over that period, 
particularly for VOIP service, which rose from 3.4 percent as of January 1, 2006 to 14.4 percent as of 
January 1, 2008.
Table 12
Availability of and Subscribers to Various Cable Services
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Percent of Subscribers to Basic Cable Service Who Have Access to Additional Services 
Digital video programming 98.3% 98.1% 99.7% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2%
HD video programming 91.9% 91.7% 93.4% 96.3% 91.2% 100.0% 73.2%
HD local broadcast simulcast 85.5% 85.3% 87.3% 92.6% 82.4% 100.0% 62.5%
Internet access 96.9% 96.6% 99.1% 98.1% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7%
Telephony 61.4% 61.8% 58.8% 70.4% 47.2% 83.9% 39.3%
Percent of Subscribers to Basic Cable Service Who Subscribe to Additional Services
Digital video  programming 41.8% 41.6% 43.5% 43.3% 42.6% 46.3% 46.0%
HD video programming 6.7% 6.8% 6.3% 6.3% 5.8% 8.7% 4.8%
Internet access 34.8% 34.6% 36.5% 41.7% 33.5% 39.9% 27.4%
Circuit switched telephony 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 7.9% 1.1% 3.8% 5.4%
VOIP telephony 3.4% 3.4% 3.1% 4.0% 2.8% 3.0% 0.4%
Source:  Attachments 14 and 15.
  
46 Subscriber information for this service is not available.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
35
Table 12-a
Availability of and Subscribers to Various Cable Services
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Percent of Subscribers to Basic Cable Service Who Have Access to Additional Services 
Digital video programming 97.9% 97.9% 98.1% 98.8% 97.4% 100.0% 100.0%
HD video programming 91.2% 90.7% 93.7% 94.2% 93.6% 97.0% 86.8%
HD local broadcast simulcast 88.1% 88.1% 88.1% 93.8% 85.9% 97.0% 75.0%
Internet access 96.8% 96.6% 97.9% 99.2% 97.4% 100.0% 94.1%
Telephony 75.9% 75.4% 78.3% 88.9% 72.7% 97.0% 66.2%
Percent of Subscribers to Basic Cable Service Who Subscribe to Additional Services
Digital video  programming 46.2% 45.6% 48.8% 49.9% 47.6% 54.3% 48.7%
HD video programming 10.9% 10.7% 11.9% 11.3% 11.8% 15.8% 6.2%
Internet access 39.6% 39.3% 40.5% 46.3% 38.6% 42.6% 36.8%
Circuit switched telephony 3.5% 3.3% 4.3% 9.2% 2.7% 4.3% 3.3%
VOIP telephony 7.5% 7.8% 6.5% 10.4% 5.1% 8.2% 5.3%
Source:  Attachments 14-a and 15-a.
Table 12-b
Availability of and Subscribers to Various Cable Services
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Availability of Service as a Percent of Cable TV Subscribers
Digital video programming 98.1% 98.1% 98.3% 99.6% 97.4% 100.0% 100.0%
HD video programming 92.5% 91.7% 96.0% 95.5% 96.2% 100.0% 88.2%
HD local broadcast simulcast 91.3% 90.7% 94.1% 96.1% 93.6% 100.0% 79.4%
Internet access 97.2% 97.0% 97.9% 99.2% 97.4% 100.0% 94.1%
Telephony 88.8% 88.3% 91.1% 94.0% 89.7% 100.0% 77.9%
Subscribers as a Percent of Cable TV Subscribers to Whom the Particular Service is Available
Digital video  programming 54.4% 54.0% 56.3% 56.7% 54.8% 65.3% 55.1%
HD video programming 17.3% 17.2% 17.8% 18.2% 17.5% 23.1% 9.4%
Internet access 44.6% 44.4% 45.9% 51.5% 43.9% 49.0% 41.6%
Circuit switched telephony 3.0% 2.8% 3.7% 9.3% 2.0% 4.3% 3.2%
VOIP telephony 14.4% 14.8% 12.5% 17.1% 11.0% 13.7% 11.0%
Source:  Attachments 14-b and 15-b.
L. Receipts from Cable Services
50. With the growth of bundled service packages, for the first time, the questionnaires asked 
cable operators to report for each system the average bill paid by residential customers for the specified 
services, including taxes and fees.  The surveys asked cable operators to provide figures on gross receipts 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
36
for the months of January 2006, January 2007, and January 2008, in addition to the list prices for each 
package.  The questionnaires focused on three groups of residential basic cable service subscribers:  (1) 
those that take only one service – video programming (“video only”); (2) those that take two services –
video and Internet access (“double play”); and (3) those that take all three services – video, Internet 
access, and telephony (“triple play”).  We intend to collect information on video only, double play, and 
triple play each year on a going-forward basis.47 The information is presented below, in Tables 13, 13a, 
and 13b.
51. Looking first at the average customer across all subgroups, Table 13, for example, 
shows that for the month of January 2006, the average monthly bill was $69.63 per customer for all 
services purchased, a figure $24.37 higher than the average price of $45.26 for expanded basic cable 
service shown in Table 1.  In January 2007, the average monthly bill was $76.85 per customer for all 
services purchased, and in January 2008, the average monthly bill was $84.59.  This was $29.58 higher 
than the average price of $47.27 for expanded basic cable service in 2007 and $34.94 higher than 
expanded basic cable service in 2008.  The difference is due to customer revenues from other 
programming services such as digital tiers, premium and pay per view programming, Internet access, 
telephony services, and taxes and fees.  Many cable operators have begun offering double-play and triple-
play services.  While the majority of cable customers subscribed only to video programming service on 
January 1, 2006 (60.6 percent) and on January 1, 2007 (53.8 percent), only 47.2 percent of cable 
subscribers continued to do so as of January 1, 2008.  These video-only customers paid an average 
monthly bill of $52.25 in January 2006, $54.50 in January 2007, and $57.99 in January 2008.  Double-
play customers who subscribed to both video programming and Internet access services, but not 
telephony, in January 2006 accounted for 32.6 percent of all customers and paid a monthly average bill of 
$92.38; in January 2007, such subscribers accounted for 31.0 percent of all customers and paid a monthly 
average bill of $95.93; and in January 2008, such subscribers accounted for 30.0 percent of all customers 
and paid a monthly average bill of $98.85.  Although relatively few customers subscribed to a triple-play 
package – video programming, Internet access, and telephony – as of January 1, 2006, this service grew 
rapidly between 2006 and 2008.  Triple-play subscribers accounted for only 6.8 percent of all customers 
as of January 2006 and paid an average bill of $128.43 per month for those services.  In January 2007, 
such subscribers accounted for 10.1 percent of all customers and paid an average bill of $138.52 per 
month; by January 2008, such subscribers accounted for 17.5 percent of all customers and paid an average 
bill of $135.41 per month.  
52. As shown in these tables, overall the average bill tends to be higher than the package 
price, but not consistently across all packages and sample groups.  The fact that an average bill may be 
either higher or lower than the price for a particular service reflects factors that are not discernable from 
our survey data.  Receipts could be higher than the package price due to taxes, franchise fees, customers 
ordering features not included in the package such as HD service, and additional receipts from premium 
and pay-per-view programming.  Offsetting these factors would be short-term promotional discounts to 
induce customers to migrate to a package service, and also the extent to which equipment, features, and 
premium programming are bundled with the package. 
  
47 These surveys did not collect separate information on double-play subscribers who take video and telephony 
only.  However, these customers and revenues are reflected in the average receipts of all subscribers shown in the 
tables.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
37
Table 13
Average Monthly Receipts Per Subscribers
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2006
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Average receipts, all subscribers $69.63 $69.90 $67.57 $70.34 $66.73 $66.81 $60.69 
Receipts, video only service $52.25 $52.35 $51.48 $49.69 $50.59 $56.54 $50.14 
Percent of subscribers 60.6% 60.7% 59.4% 53.3% 63.5% 54.7% 66.5%
Expanded basic price $45.26 $45.48 $43.70 $38.45 $45.83 $45.20 $44.73
Receipts, double play package $92.38 $93.02 $87.27 $85.22 $86.69 $91.97 $80.60 
Percent of subscribers 32.6% 32.6% 33.0% 34.2% 31.6% 37.1% 26.6%
Double play price $91.47 $91.30 $92.51 $81.62 $98.59 $90.00 $93.67 
Receipts, triple play package $128.43 $129.76 $117.41 $122.39 $107.52 $133.45 $93.53 
Percent of subscribers 6.8% 6.7% 7.5% 12.5% 4.9% 8.2% 6.9%
Triple play price $113.85 $113.67 $115.20 $112.42 $121.00 $107.56 $118.40 
Source:  2006 survey.  Note:  Double play and triple play prices are as of July 2006.
Table 13-a
Average Monthly Receipts Per Subscribers
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2007
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Average receipts, all subscribers $76.85 $77.07 $75.81 $82.25 $72.40 $85.22 $70.52 
Receipts, video only service $54.50 $54.76 $53.32 $51.97 $53.17 $58.90 $47.88 
Percent of subscribers 53.8% 54.3% 51.5% 47.2% 52.6% 51.8% 54.1%
Expanded basic price $47.27 $47.49 $46.28 $42.59 $47.25 $47.17 $46.93 
Receipts, double play package $95.93 $96.29 $94.30 $99.00 $90.50 $107.35 $91.70 
Percent of subscribers 31.0% 30.6% 32.6% 32.2% 32.4% 33.7% 35.6%
Double play price $87.47 $87.14 $88.80 $83.46 $90.03 $89.71 $94.42 
Receipts, triple play package $138.52 $140.32 $130.65 $126.39 $131.03 $138.78 $120.18 
Percent of subscribers 10.1% 10.2% 9.7% 17.3% 7.0% 12.2% 6.4%
Triple play price $117.68 $117.95 $116.52 $111.09 $119.82 $111.14 $119.69 
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
38
Table 13-b
Average Monthly Receipts Per Subscribers
Sample Group Subgroups of CommunitiesRelieved from Rate Regulation
January 1, 2008
Overall Non-Competitive
Relieved 
from Rate 
Regulation
Second 
Cable 
Operator
DBS Wireless MVPD LP Test
Average receipts, all subscribers $84.59 $84.72 $84.01 $90.78 $80.83 $92.61 $79.16 
Receipts, video only service $57.99 $57.95 $58.16 $56.88 $58.40 $61.44 $52.85 
Percent of subscribers 47.2% 47.6% 45.4% 40.6% 46.7% 44.6% 50.2%
Expanded basic price $49.65 $49.97 $48.19 $44.92 $48.87 $49.65 $49.80 
Receipts, double play package $98.85 $98.79 $99.11 $103.22 $96.23 $108.73 $98.63 
Percent of subscribers 30.0% 29.5% 32.3% 32.3% 32.0% 32.9% 35.9%
Double play price $88.63 $88.71 $88.30 $86.54 $90.17 $78.56 $93.87 
Receipts, triple play package $135.41 $137.75 $125.42 $126.95 $123.44 $137.43 $114.93 
Percent of subscribers 17.5% 17.9% 15.9% 23.7% 13.3% 19.8% 10.1%
Triple play price $118.00 $118.31 $116.70 $112.77 $118.58 $112.18 $120.62 
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
53. The data reflect some variations in customer payments between the competitive and 
noncompetitive groups, as well as variations within the competitive group according to the basis for the 
finding of effective competition.  In particular, for January 2006, for example, the average gross receipts 
derived from triple-play customers was $117.41 for the group relieved from rate regulation and $129.76 –
approximately 10.5 percent higher – for the noncompetitive group.  Among the subgroups of operators 
relieved from rate regulation, gross receipts from the triple play were higher in communities where the 
effective competition finding was based on wireless MVPD ($133.45) or the presence of a second cable 
operator ($122.39) compared to $107.52 for the DBS subgroup, but subscriber uptake of the triple play 
was also higher for these subgroups (8.2 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively) compared to 4.9 percent 
for the DBS subgroup.  The data for 2007 and 2008 reflect similar variations in customer payments 
between the competitive and noncompetitive groups, as well as variations within the competitive group 
according to the basis for the finding of effective competition.
IV. ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS
54. In Appendix B of this report, we use econometric analysis to examine the data collected.  
As in the 2005 Report’s findings, we estimate the effect of market structure on cable prices and use a 
“structure-conduct-performance” paradigm as the basis for analysis.  Consistent with prior findings, the 
results show that cable prices tend to be higher in local markets where cable operators have a larger share 
of the MVPD market than in areas where cable operators have a smaller share of the market.  The 
relationship may indicate the use of market power by dominant firms to raise prices or may reflect higher 
costs to serve those markets.  In markets with two competing cable operators, results show a tendency for 
the incumbent operator to undercut the overbuild rival’s price.  The presence of a rival cable operator 
tends to reduce the incumbent’s price by 14.1 percent compared to markets without a second cable 
operator, all other things being held constant.  Complete results of this analysis are described in Appendix 
B.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
39
V. CONCLUSIONS
55. Cable systems found to face effective competition continue to exhibit lower prices than 
cable systems that serve communities in which no such finding has been made.  As in previous years, the 
competitive differential varied, with the largest differential occurring in communities with a second cable 
operator.  The average monthly price of expanded basic service increased by 3.9 percent over the 12 
months ending January 1, 2006; by 4.6 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2007; and by 5.0 
percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2008.  Overall, from 1995 to 2008, the price of expanded 
basic service has grown from $22.35 to $49.65, an increase of 122.1 percent, compared with an increase 
in general inflation of 38.4 percent.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE
56. IT IS  ORDERED that this Report be issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 
623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 543(k).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Shah Desai
Chief, Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
40
Attachment 1-a
2006 Survey Overview
Sample Groups and Subgroups Number of Observations
Percent of 
Cable 
Subscribers
Number of 
Observations 
Selected for 
Sampling
Survey 
Questionnaires 
Completed
Sample Groups Overall
Noncompetitive communities 31,743 87.70% 458 434
Communities relieved from rate regulation 2,055 12.30% 334 320
Total 33,798 100.00% 792 754
Noncompetitive Communities (1)
Grouped by Size of Cable System Serving Community
50,001 or more subscribers (very large) 8,861 61.30% 265 261
25,001 - 50,000 subscribers (large) 3,748 14.30% 60 58
10,001 - 25,000 subscribers (medium) 4,411 10.80% 49 48
1,001 - 10,000 subscribers (small) 8,130 10.50% 49 44
1,000 or fewer subscribers (very small) 6593 3.10% 35 23
Total 31743 100.00% 458 434
Communities Relieved from Rate Regulation (2)
Grouped by Basis For Finding of Effective Competition
Sufficient level of DBS subscribers 1,443 55.10% 127 125
Presence of  second cable operator (incumbents) 165 20.20% 58 54
Presence of  second cable operator (rivals) 156 6.90% 58 54
In signal range of  a wireless MVPD 137 15.20% 31 31
Cable operator met low penetration test 154 2.60% 60 56
Total 2,055 100.00% 334 320
Sources: 2006 survey;  FCC Form 322, Cable Community Registration, filings pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 76.1801;  
FCC Form-325, Annual Cable Operator Report, filings pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 76.403;  and  FCC “Effective 
Competition” orders pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.916(a).
(1) Communities without a finding of effective competition.
(2) Communities where the FCC has made a finding of effective competition.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
41
Attachment 1-b
2007/2008 Survey Overview 
Sample Groups and Subgroups Number of Observations
Percent of  
Cable 
Subscribers
Number of 
Observations 
Selected for 
Sampling
Survey 
Questionnaires 
Completed
Sample Groups Overall
Noncompetitive communities 30,352 81.90% 412 388
Communities relieved from rate regulation 3,205 18.10% 300 286
Total 33,557 100.00% 712 674
Noncompetitive Communities (1)
Grouped by Size of Cable System Serving Community
75,001 or more subscribers (very large) 7,907 51.28% 167 166
25,001 - 75,000 subscribers (large) 5,634 24.79% 82 82
10,001 - 25,000 subscribers (medium) 4,294 10.99% 45 44
1,001 - 10,000 subscribers (small) 7,492 10.38% 62 55
1,000 or fewer subscribers (very small) 5,025 2.56% 56 41
Total 30,352 100.00% 412 388
Communities Relieved from Rate Regulation (2)
Grouped by Basis For Finding of Effective Competition
Sufficient level of DBS subscribers 2,343 64.09% 80 78
Presence of  second cable operator (incumbents) 165 16.02% 55 55
Presence of  second cable operator (rivals) 158 4.42% 55 52
In signal range of  a wireless MVPD 154 10.50% 33 33
Cable operator met low penetration test 385 4.97% 77 68
Total 3,205 100.00% 300 286 
Sources:  2007/2008 survey;  FCC Form 322, Cable Community Registration, filings pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 
76.1801;  FCC Form-325, Annual Cable Operator Report, filings pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 76.403;  and  FCC 
“Effective Competition” orders pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.916(a).
(1) Communities without a finding of effective competition.
(2) Communities where the FCC has made a finding of effective competition.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
42
Attachment 2
Average Monthly Price
January 1, 2006 January 1, 2005
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 754 $14.59 0.219 754 $14.20 0.215
Cable programming service 754 $30.67 0.276 754 $29.36 0.277
Expanded basic service 754 $45.26 0.162 754 $43.56 0.162
Sample groups 
overall
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 754 87.8% 0.324 752 88.0% 0.325
Basic cable service 434 $14.52 0.247 434 $14.14 0.242
Cable programming service 434 $30.96 0.311 434 $29.63 0.312
Expanded basic service 434 $45.48 0.182 434 $43.77 0.183
Noncompetitive 
Communities
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 434 87.8% 0.362 432 87.9% 0.363
Basic cable service 320 $15.09 0.260 320 $14.59 0.290
Cable programming service 320 $28.62 0.328 320 $27.48 0.346
Expanded basic service 320 $43.70 0.222 320 $42.07 0.212
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 320 88.4% 0.536 320 88.4% 0.521
Basic cable service 108 $13.07 0.401 108 $12.89 0.382
Cable programming service 108 $25.38 0.642 108 $23.99 0.635
Expanded basic service 108 $38.45 0.547 108 $36.89 0.510
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(overall)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 108 91.7% 0.582 108 91.2% 0.591
Basic cable service 54 $12.77 0.463 54 $12.42 0.424
Cable programming service 54 $25.39 0.805 54 $24.37 0.772
Expanded basic service 54 $38.17 0.706 54 $36.79 0.656
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 54 91.1% 0.672 54 90.9% 0.701
Basic cable service 54 $13.94 0.799 54 $14.28 0.842
Cable programming service 54 $25.34 0.898 54 $22.88 1.049
Expanded basic service 54 $39.28 0.588 54 $37.16 0.573
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(rivals)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 54 93.3% 1.160 54 92.2% 1.084
Basic cable service 125 $15.81 0.419 125 $15.19 0.484
Cable programming service 125 $30.01 0.492 125 $29.08 0.538
Expanded basic service 125 $45.83 0.288 125 $44.27 0.284DBS subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 125 86.5% 0.897 125 86.4% 0.874
Basic cable service 31 $15.96 0.296 31 $15.32 0.309
Cable programming service 31 $29.24 0.382 31 $27.86 0.263
Expanded basic service 31 $45.20 0.287 31 $43.18 0.233
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 31 89.4% 0.867 31 90.1% 0.752
Basic cable service 56 $15.65 0.703 56 $15.20 0.763
Cable programming service 56 $29.07 0.780 56 $27.72 0.915
Expanded basic service 56 $44.73 0.504 56 $42.93 0.503
Low penetration 
test subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 56 89.2% 1.130 56 88.9% 1.141
Source: 2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
43
Attachment 2-a
Average Monthly Price
January 1, 2007 January 1, 2006
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 670 $15.33 0.257 626 $14.70 0.266
Cable programming service 670 $31.94 0.337 626 $30.48 0.341
Expanded basic service 670 $47.27 0.188 626 $45.18 0.186
Sample groups 
overall
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 661 88.7% 0.288 590 88.0% 0.318
Basic cable service 384 $15.10 0.299 357 $14.57 0.308
Cable programming service 384 $32.39 0.390 357 $30.96 0.392
Expanded basic service 384 $47.49 0.216 357 $45.53 0.214
Noncompetitive 
Communities
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 378 88.6% 0.323 337 88.1% 0.328
Basic cable service 286 $16.37 0.437 269 $15.32 0.458
Cable programming service 286 $29.90 0.595 269 $28.28 0.620
Expanded basic service 286 $46.28 0.356 269 $43.60 0.343
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 283 88.8% 0.631 253 87.7% 0.956
Basic cable service 107 $14.65 0.505 99 $13.71 0.532
Cable programming service 107 $27.94 0.756 99 $26.22 0.845
Expanded basic service 107 $42.59 0.678 99 $39.93 0.686
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(overall)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 105 92.0% 0.508 98 91.3% 0.535
Basic cable service 55 $13.71 0.454 54 $13.26 0.592
Cable programming service 55 $29.05 0.847 54 $26.98 0.984
Expanded basic service 55 $42.77 0.831 54 $40.24 0.830
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 55 91.0% 0.598 53 90.4% 0.619
Basic cable service 52 $18.07 1.661 45 $15.56 1.216
Cable programming service 52 $23.88 1.673 45 $23.09 1.507
Expanded basic service 52 $41.95 0.859 45 $38.65 0.795
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(rivals)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 50 95.8% 0.885 45 95.2% 1.005
Basic cable service 78 $16.76 0.654 70 $15.59 0.700
Cable programming service 78 $30.49 0.888 70 $28.89 0.941
Expanded basic service 78 $47.25 0.503 70 $44.48 0.488DBS subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 78 87.4% 0.963 62 85.6% 1.574
Basic cable service 33 $16.99 0.498 32 $16.08 0.522
Cable programming service 33 $30.18 0.622 32 $29.01 0.613
Expanded basic service 33 $47.17 0.531 32 $45.09 0.496
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 33 90.7% 0.590 32 90.6% 0.529
Basic cable service 68 $17.08 0.917 68 $17.00 1.008
Cable programming service 68 $29.85 1.005 68 $27.76 1.017
Expanded basic service 68 $46.93 0.490 68 $44.77 0.491
Low penetration 
test subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 67 90.6% 0.784 61 88.9% 1.009
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
44
Attachment 2-b
Average Monthly Price
January 1, 2008 January 1, 2007
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 674 $16.11 0.266 670 $15.33 0.257
Cable programming service 674 $33.54 0.355 670 $31.94 0.337
Expanded basic service 674 $49.65 0.211 670 $47.27 0.188
Sample groups 
overall
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 671 89.5% 0.279 661 88.7% 0.288
Basic cable service 388 $15.83 0.309 384 $15.10 0.299
Cable programming service 388 $34.14 0.412 384 $32.39 0.390
Expanded basic service 388 $49.97 0.243 384 $47.49 0.216
Noncompetitive 
Communities
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 386 89.4% 0.311 378 88.6% 0.323
Basic cable service 286 $17.37 0.449 286 $16.37 0.437
Cable programming service 286 $30.82 0.602 286 $29.90 0.595
Expanded basic service 286 $48.19 0.383 286 $46.28 0.356
Communities 
relieved from 
rate regulation
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 285 89.7% 0.625 283 88.8% 0.631
Basic cable service 107 $16.06 0.560 107 $14.65 0.505
Cable programming service 107 $28.86 0.749 107 $27.94 0.756
Expanded basic service 107 $44.92 0.713 107 $42.59 0.678
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup 
(overall) Expanded basic subscribers (%) 107 92.5% 0.485 105 92.0% 0.508
Basic cable service 55 $15.23 0.518 55 $13.71 0.454
Cable programming service 55 $29.81 0.824 55 $29.05 0.847
Expanded basic service 55 $45.04 0.880 55 $42.77 0.831
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents) Expanded basic subscribers (%) 55 91.6% 0.574 55 91.0% 0.598
Basic cable service 52 $19.06 1.782 52 $18.07 1.661
Cable programming service 52 $25.44 1.752 52 $23.88 1.673
Expanded basic service 52 $44.49 0.833 52 $41.95 0.859
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup (rivals)
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 52 95.5% 0.838 50 95.8% 0.885
Basic cable service 78 $17.64 0.670 78 $16.76 0.654
Cable programming service 78 $31.23 0.901 78 $30.49 0.888
Expanded basic service 78 $48.87 0.545 78 $47.25 0.503DBS subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 78 88.4% 0.956 78 87.4% 0.963
Basic cable service 33 $17.81 0.485 33 $16.99 0.498
Cable programming service 33 $31.84 0.538 33 $30.18 0.622
Expanded basic service 33 $49.65 0.502 33 $47.17 0.531
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 33 91.4% 0.556 33 90.7% 0.590
Basic cable service 68 $18.25 0.836 68 $17.08 0.917
Cable programming service 68 $31.55 0.951 68 $29.85 1.005
Expanded basic service 68 $49.80 0.564 68 $46.93 0.490
Low penetration 
test subgroup
Expanded basic subscribers (%) 67 91.1% 0.734 67 90.6% 0.784
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
45
Attachment 3
Digital Price and Weighted Average Cable Price
Digital Subscriber Shares (1) Digital Price (2) Weighted Average  Cable Price (3)
Sample Group Date
N Digital to Basic
Digital to 
Expanded 
Basic
N Mean Std. Error N Mean Std. Error
1/1/06 747 41.8% 47.7% 727 $13.83 0.187 720 $52.26 0.223Sample groups overall
1/1/05 764 37.3% 42.9% 724 $13.59 0.176 $48.44
1/1/06 429 41.6% 47.5% 416 $13.94 0.211 411 $52.58 0.251Noncompetitive 
communities 1/1/05 484 37.1% 42.6% 413 $13.70 0.199
1/1/06 318 43.5% 49.3% 311 $13.05 0.232 309 $50.03 0.312Communities relieved 
from rate regulation 1/1/05 280 39.9% 45.3% 311 $12.85 0.234
1/1/06 106 43.3% 47.5% 103 $13.91 0.354 101 $44.86 0.643Second cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 1/1/05 111 39.8% 44.3% 103 $13.52 0.374
1/1/06 54 46.8% 51.6% 53 $13.18 0.414 53 $44.84 0.819Second cable operator 
(incumbents) 1/1/05 56 40.8% 45.7% 53 $12.69 0.445
1/1/06 52 32.8% 35.2% 50 $16.18 0.676 48 $44.91 0.633Second cable operator  
(rivals)  (4) 1/1/05 55 37.0% 40.2% 50 $16.12 0.671
1/1/06 125 42.6% 49.6% 125 $13.26 0.367 125 $52.29 0.455DBS subgroup
1/1/05 124 39.6% 46.9% 125 $13.12 0.366
1/1/06 31 46.3% 51.4% 31 $11.13 0.347 31 $50.75 0.426Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 1/1/05 27 38.6% 52.5% 31 $11.05 0.364
1/1/06 56 46.0% 51.1% 52 $11.07 0.639 52 $49.43 0.605Low penetration test 
subgroup 1/1/05 18 54.0% 61.4% 52 $10.86 0.603
(1)  Sources:  2006 survey and 2005 survey.  These shares are the number of digital subscribers as a percentage of, 
respectively, all cable TV subscribers (basic subscribers) and Cable TV subscribers that take expanded basic service.  
In calculating the averages, if a community was not offered digital service, the digital share equaled 0.
(2)  Source:  2006 survey.  This is the average price charged by operators who offer a digital tier.  The price is for 
the most-highly subscribed digital tier and the first digital converter and remote control.
(3) Source:  See Attachment 5, which also describes the calculation.  As explained in Attachment 5, only the overall 
average and not the subgroup averages were calculated for year 2005.
(4)  This subgroup is comprised of relatively few communities whose composition changes from year to year.  The 
decline in digital shares, 2005 to 2006, primarily represents a difference in the composition of communities 
randomly selected in 2005 survey and 2006 survey, and not discontinuance of digital service by subscribers.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
46
Attachment 3-a
Digital Price and Weighted Average Cable Price
Digital Subscribers (1) Digital Price (2) Weighted Average  Cable Price (3)
Sample Group Date
N
Digital 
to 
Basic
Digital to 
Expanded 
Basic
N Mean Std. Error N Mean Std. Error
1/1/07 660 46.2% 52.3% 622 $13.00 0.139 610 $54.73 0.216Sample groups overall
1/1/06 747 41.8% 47.7% 576 $12.55 0.154 720 $52.26 0.223
1/1/07 379 45.6% 51.6% 347 $13.04 0.163 341 $55.00 0.252Noncompetitive 
communities 1/1/06 429 41.6% 47.5% 322 $12.50 0.178 411 $52.58 0.251
1/1/07 281 48.8% 55.4% 275 $12.82 0.225 269 $53.58 0.356Communities relieved 
from rate regulation 1/1/06 318 43.5% 49.3% 254 $12.76 0.261 309 $50.03 0.312
1/1/07 102 49.9% 54.6% 99 $13.57 0.318 94 $49.58 0.759Second cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 1/1/06 106 43.3% 47.5% 89 $13.28 0.301 101 $44.86 0.643
1/1/07 55 50.5% 55.9% 55 $12.76 0.357 55 $49.81 0.894Second cable operator 
subgroup (incumbents) 1/1/06 54 46.8% 51.6% 54 $12.84 0.338 53 $44.84 0.819
1/1/07 47 47.3% 49.4% 44 $17.03 0.697 39 $48.49 0.960Second cable operator 
subgroup (rivals)  1/1/06 52 32.8% 35.2% 35 $15.63 0.613 48 $44.91 0.633
1/1/07 78 47.6% 55.1% 75 $12.84 0.328 75 $54.79 0.493DBS subgroup
1/1/06 125 42.6% 49.6% 66 $12.88 0.400 125 $52.29 0.455
1/1/07 33 54.3% 59.9% 33 $11.47 0.431 33 $53.90 0.537Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 1/1/06 31 46.3% 51.4% 32 $11.29 0.439 31 $50.75 0.426
1/1/07 68 48.7% 53.8% 68 $12.58 0.471 67 $53.55 0.518Low penetration test 
subgroup 1/1/06 56 46.0% 51.1% 67 $12.46 0.469 52 $49.43 0.605
(1)  Sources:  2007/2008 survey and 2006 survey.  These shares are the number of digital subscribers as a percentage 
of, respectively, cable TV subscribers (basic subscribers) and those basic subscribers that also take expanded basic 
service.  In calculating these averages, if a community was not offered digital service, the digital share equaled 0.
(2)  Source:  2007/2008 survey.  This is the average price charged by operators who offer a digital tier.  The price is 
for the most-highly subscribed digital tier and the first digital converter and remote control.
(3)  Source:  See Attachment 5, which also describes the calculation.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
47
Attachment 3-b
Digital Price and Weighted Average Cable Price
Digital Subscribers (1) Digital Price (2) Weighted Average Cable Price (3)
Sample Group Date
N
Digital 
to 
Basic
Digital to 
Expanded 
Basic
N Mean Std. Error N Mean Std. Error
1/1/08 671 54.4% 61.0% 634 $14.01 0.139 629 $58.80 0.279Sample groups overall
1/1/07 660 46.2% 52.3% 622 $13.00 0.139 610 $54.73 0.216
1/1/08 388 54.0% 60.6% 356 $14.16 0.161 355 $59.25 0.327Noncompetitive 
communities 1/1/07 379 45.6% 51.6% 347 $13.04 0.163 341 $55.00 0.252
1/1/08 283 56.3% 63.2% 278 $13.34 0.242 274 $56.80 0.440Communities relieved 
from rate regulation 1/1/07 281 48.8% 55.4% 275 $12.82 0.225 269 $53.58 0.356
1/1/08 104 56.7% 61.6% 101 $14.27 0.359 98 $53.12 0.859Second cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 1/1/07 102 49.9% 54.6% 99 $13.57 0.318 94 $49.58 0.759
1/1/08 55 57.4% 62.9% 55 $13.33 0.395 55 $53.39 1.023Second cable operator 
subgroup (incumbents) 1/1/07 55 50.5% 55.9% 55 $12.76 0.357 55 $49.81 0.894
1/1/08 49 54.0% 56.4% 46 $18.12 0.858 43 $51.93 1.140Second cable operator 
subgroup (rivals)  1/1/07 47 47.3% 49.4% 44 $17.03 0.697 39 $48.49 0.960
1/1/08 78 54.8% 62.5% 76 $13.16 0.351 76 $57.57 0.623DBS subgroup
1/1/07 78 47.6% 55.1% 75 $12.84 0.328 75 $54.79 0.493
1/1/08 33 65.3% 71.8% 33 $12.59 0.462 33 $58.54 0.557Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 1/1/07 33 54.3% 59.9% 33 $11.47 0.431 33 $53.90 0.537
1/1/08 68 55.1% 60.7% 68 $13.40 0.437 67 $57.94 0.668Low penetration test 
subgroup 1/1/07 68 48.7% 53.8% 68 $12.58 0.471 67 $53.55 0.518
(1)  Source:  2007/2008 survey.  These shares are the number of digital subscribers as a percentage of, respectively, 
cable TV subscribers (basic subscribers) and basic subscribers that also take expanded basic service.  In calculating 
these averages, if a community was not offered digital service, the digital share equaled 0.
(2)  Source:  2007/2008 survey.  This is the average price charged by operators who offer a digital tier.  The price is 
for the most-highly subscribed digital tier and the first digital converter and remote control.
(3)  Source:  See Attachment 5, which also describes the calculation.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
48
Attachment 4
Averages for 1995-2008 (1)
Expanded Basic 
Service
Consumer Price 
Index (3)
Inflation 
Adjusted Cable 
Price (4)Date
Basic 
Cable 
Service 
Tier
CPST 
(2)
Price Channels
Capacity 
in MHz All 
Items
Less 
Food & 
Energy
All 
Items
Less 
Food & 
Energy
Jul. 1995 --- --- $22.35 44.0 --- 100.0 100.0 $22.35 $22.35 
Jul. 1996 --- --- $24.28 47.0 --- 103.0 102.7 $23.58 $23.63 
Jul. 1997 --- --- $26.31 49.4 --- 105.2 105.2 $25.00 $25.01 
Jul. 1998 $12.06 $15.82 $27.88 50.1 --- 107.0 107.6 $26.05 $25.92 
Jul. 1999 $12.58 $16.36 $28.94 51.1 534 109.3 109.8 $26.47 $26.36 
Jul. 2000 $12.84 $18.38 $31.22 54.8 623 113.3 112.5 $27.55 $27.74 
Jul. 2001 $12.84 $20.91 $33.75 59.4 652 116.4 115.6 $29.00 $29.20 
Jul. 2002 (5) $14.45 $22.02 $36.47 62.7 694 118.1 118.1 $30.88 $30.87 
Jan. 2003 $13.45 $25.50 $38.95 67.5 --- 119.1 119.1 $32.69 $32.72 
Jan. 2004 $13.80 $27.24 $41.04 70.3 734 121.4 120.4 $33.79 $34.08 
Jan. 2005 $14.30 $28.74 $43.04 70.5 736 125.0 123.2 $34.42 $34.95 
Jan. 2006 (6) $14.59 $30.67 $45.26 71.0 749 130.0 125.8 $34.81 $35.99 
Jan. 2007 $15.33 $31.94 $47.27 72.6 748 132.7 129.1 $35.61 $36.61 
Jan. 2008 $16.11 $33.54 $49.65 72.8 759 138.4 132.3 $35.87 $37.53 
Change from 1995-2008 122.1% 65.6% --- 38.4% 32.3% 60.5% 67.9%
Sources:  Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, 12 
FCC Rcd 3239 (1997) (”1997 survey”); 14 FCC Rcd 8331 (1999) (“1998 survey”); 15 FCC Rcd 10927 (2000) 
(“1999 survey”); 16 FCC Rcd 4346 (2001) (“2000 survey”); 17 FCC Rcd 6301 (2002) (“2001 survey”);  18 FCC 
Rcd 13284 (2003) (“2002 survey”); 20 FCC Rcd 2718 (2005) (“2004 survey”); 21 FCC Rcd 15087 (2006) (“2005 
survey”); 2006 survey; and 2007/2008 survey.  Sources by year: 1995-1997 (1997 survey); 1998 (1998 survey); 
1999 (1999 survey) except capacity (2004 survey data); 2000 (2000 survey); 2001 (2001 survey); July 2002 (2002 
survey); 2003-2004 (2004 survey); 2005 (2005 survey); 2006 (2006 survey); and 2007-2008 (2007/2008 survey).
(1)  Averages in this attachment are composite subscriber-weighted averages of noncompetitive communities and 
communities relieved from rate regulation, except prices and channels, 1995-2000, and capacity, 2000-2001, which 
are noncompetitive averages as the composite averages were not included in the survey reports.  Missing data 
indicate we did not survey the metric that year.  For 1995, only a combined programming and equipment price was 
reported and, thus, the 1995 expanded basic price was calculated by subtracting an estimate of equipment price.
(2)  The price of the most highly subscribed cable programming service tier (“CPST”).
(3)  Sources:  Bureau of Labor Statistics , Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, Not 
Seasonally Adjusted, base 1982-84=100, Series CUUR0000SA0 (All Items) and CUUR0000SA0L1E (All Items 
Less Food and Energy), extracted from www.bls.gov (June 5, 2008), rebased to July 1995 = 100.
(4) These prices are in 1995 dollars, calculated by dividing expanded basic price by CPI multiplied by 100. 
(5)  January 2002 prices were also sampled, and these sample prices averaged $13.06 for the basic cable service tier, 
$23.01 for the CPST, and $36.12 for expanded basic service.  In January 2002, the CPI (July 1995=100) was 116.1 
(All Items) and 116.8 (All Items Less Food and Energy). 
(6)  Because each survey randomly samples a different group of communities, 2006 averages calculated from the 
2006 survey will not necessarily match 2006 averages calculated from 2006/2007 survey.  For example, the 
expanded basic price based on the 2006 survey equals $45.26 (shown in this attachment and Attachment 2) and 
equals $45.18 on the basis of the 2007/2008 sample (shown in Attachment 2-a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
49
Attachment 5
Weighted Average Cable Price, 1995-2008
Price Index (1995=100)
Date Expanded Basic Price Digital Price (1) Digital Share (2)
Weighted 
Average 
Cable Price 
(3)
Expanded 
Basic 
Price
Weighted 
Average 
Cable 
Price
Jul. 1995 $22.35 --- --- $22.35 100.0 100.0
Jul. 1996 $24.28 --- --- $24.28 108.6 108.6
Jul. 1997 $26.31 --- --- $26.31 117.7 117.7
Jul. 1998 $27.88 $10.70 1.2% $28.01 124.7 125.3
Jul. 1999 $28.94 $9.49 5.4% $29.45 129.5 131.8
Jul. 2000 $31.22 $8.42 8.4% $31.93 139.7 142.9
Jul. 2001 $33.75 $11.58 17.6% $35.79 151.0 160.1
Jul. 2002 $36.47 $10.12 27.1% $39.21 163.2 175.4
Jan. 2003 $38.95 $10.08 33.4% $42.32 174.3 189.4
Jan. 2004 $41.04 $10.72 39.6% $45.29 183.6 202.6
Jan. 2005 (4) $43.04 $12.99 41.6% $48.44 192.6 216.7
Jan. 2006 $45.26 $13.83 47.7% $52.26 202.5 233.8
Jan. 2007 $47.27 $13.00 52.3% $54.73 211.5 244.9
Jan. 2008 $49.65 $14.01 61.0% $58.80 222.1 263.1
Change, 1995-2008 122.1% --- --- 163.1% 122.1% 163.1%
Sources:  See Attachment 4.
(1)   Digital price consists of the price to receive the most-highly subscribed digital tier and the first set of digital 
equipment (a digital converter and remote control).  In some survey reports, the reported price is described as digital 
programming, which is presumed to include a converter and remote control as well as programming.  Prior to 1998, 
digital service was in the start-up phase, and thus survey data were not collected.
(2) Digital share (Sdig/eb) equals the ratio of digital to expanded basic subscribers, equal to Sdig/b divided by Seb/b 
(not shown in this table) which, respectively, equal the ratio of digital to basic subscribers and expanded basic to 
basic subscribers.  The average digital share is this attachment includes cable operators who offer and do not offer 
digital service, and in the latter case the digital share equals 0.
(3)  This column equals Peb + (Pdig x Sdig/eb), where Peb equals expanded basic price, Pdig equals digital price, 
and Sdig/eb equals digital share.  Expanded basic service is typically a prerequisite to ordering a digital tier, and 
weighting digital price reflects that not all expanded basic subscribers order a digital tier.  Consistent with previous 
survey reports, the expanded basic price is not weighted by the percent of expanded basic to basic subscribers.  The 
averages are based on communities where a digital tier is offered.
(4)  For 2005 and prior years, the weighted average cable price is based on national averages of components of the 
formula shown in the note above.  Sdig/b was not collected for survey years 1998-2000 and 2004.  For 1998, it was 
calculated by dividing 160,000 digital subscribers by 14.1 million basic subscribers represented in the sample.  For 
1999, it was calculated by dividing digital 634,102 subscribers by 13.1 million basic subscribers represented.  The 
2000 value is from 2001 survey and the 2004 value is the mid-point between 2002 and 2004 values.  For 1998-2005, 
Sdig/b equals 1.1% (1998), 4.8% (1999), 7.5% (2000), 15.7% (2001), 24.1% (2002), 29.7% (2003), 35.2% (2004), 
and 37.0% (2005).  Seb/b is not available in all reports, but has varied between 88% and 90% in years reported, and 
was set constant at 89% across years 1998-2005.  After 2005, the weighted average cable prices were constructed 
for each survey respondent prior to calculating the national average.  The two methods typically produce slightly 
different results. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
50
Attachment 6
Averages for 1995-2008
by Sample Group
Expanded Basic ServiceDate Basic Cable 
Service Tier
Cable 
Programming 
Service Tier Price Channels 
System 
Capacity 
(MHz)
Noncompetitive Communities
July 1995 --- --- $22.35 44.0 ---
July 1996 --- --- $24.28 47.0 ---
July 1997 --- --- $26.31 49.4 ---
July 1998 $12.06 $15.82 $27.88 50.1 ---
July 1999 $12.58 $16.36 $28.94 51.1 532
July 2000 $12.84 $18.38 $31.22 54.8 623
July 2001 $12.87 $21.02 $33.89 59.3 652
July 2002 (1) $14.47 $22.14 $36.61 62.7 696
January 2003 $13.38 $25.73 $39.11 67.3 ---
January 2004 $13.73 $27.56 $41.29 70.1 734
January 2005 $14.25 $29.08 $43.33 70.3 734
January 2006 $14.52 $30.96 $45.48 70.6 747
January 2007 $15.10 $32.39 $47.49 72.5 744
January 2008 $15.83 $34.14 $49.97 72.8 757 
Percent Change 1995-2008 123.6% 65.5% ---
Communities Relieved from Rate Regulation
July 1995 --- --- $21.64 38.0 ---
July 1996 --- --- $23.32 39.6 ---
July 1997 --- --- $25.29 46.5 ---
July 1998 $11.12 $15.00 $26.12 54.0 ---
July 1999 $12.03 $15.27 $27.30 52.3 619
July 2000 $12.03 $17.41 $29.44 59.9 630
July 2001 $12.43 $19.23 $31.66 60.9 666
July 2002 (2) $14.09 $20.25 $34.34 62.9 677
January 2003 $14.25 $22.61 $36.86 69.7 ---
January 2004 $14.58 $23.59 $38.17 72.5 734
January 2005 $14.80 $25.35 $40.15 72.0 754
January 2006 $15.09 $28.62 $43.70 74.0 765
January 2007 $16.37 $29.90 $46.28 73.0 766
January 2008 $17.37 $30.82 $48.19 73.0 772 
Percent Change 1995-2008 122.7% 92.0% ---
Sources:  See Attachment 4.
(1)  January 2002 prices were also sampled.  In January 2002, prices averaged $13.06 for the basic cable service tier, 
$23.15 for the cable programming service tier, and $36.21 for expanded basic service.
(2)  In January 2002, prices averaged $13.70 for the basic cable service tier, $21.36 for the cable programming 
service tier, and $35.06 for expanded basic service.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
51
Attachment 7
Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber
Sample Group Year N Mean (1) Std. Error
2005 751 $13.41 0.185Sample groups overall
2004 746 $12.54 0.165
2005 433 $13.32 0.208Noncompetitive Communities
2004 428 $12.46 0.185
2005 318 $14.10 0.248Communities relieved from rate regulation
2004 318 $13.09 0.229
2005 107 $14.83 0.244Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
2004 107 $13.76 0.236
2005 54 $13.80 0.289Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
2004 54 $12.82 0.254
2005 53 $17.90 0.447Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
2004 53 $16.56 0.556
2005 124 $14.43 0.429DBS subgroup
2004 124 $13.38 0.394
2005 31 $11.50 0.204Wireless MVPD subgroup
2004 31 $10.75 0.230
2005 56 $14.94 0.610Low penetration test subgroup
2004 56 $13.64 0.574
Source:  2006 survey.
(1)  Monthly programming expense per subscriber is approximated by dividing yearly programming cost by end of 
year basic cable service subscribers, dividing by 12 months.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
52
Attachment 7-a
Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber
Sample Group Year N Mean (1) Std. Error
2006 611 $14.74 0.163Sample groups overall
2005 567 $13.61 0.135
2006 336 $14.73 0.195Noncompetitive Communities
2005 310 $13.60 0.157
2006 275 $14.77 0.230Communities relieved from rate regulation
2005 257 $13.64 0.232
2006 99 $15.39 0.305Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
2005 96 $14.00 0.294
2006 51 $14.48 0.362Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
2005 50 $13.14 0.351
2006 48 $18.73 0.525Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
2005 46 $17.21 0.474
2006 76 $14.91 0.338DBS subgroup
2005 63 $13.79 0.350
2006 32 $12.39 0.306Wireless MVPD subgroup
2005 32 $11.40 0.209
2006 68 $15.51 0.354Low penetration test subgroup
2005 66 $15.41 1.073
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Monthly programming expense per subscriber is approximated by dividing yearly programming cost by end of 
year basic cable service subscribers, dividing by 12 months.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
53
Attachment 7-b
Monthly Programming Expense per Subscriber
Sample Group Year N Mean (1) Std. Error
2007 662 $16.14 0.186Sample groups overall
2006 611 $14.74 0.163
2007 377 $16.09 0.219Noncompetitive Communities
2006 336 $14.73 0.195
2007 285 $16.34 0.270Communities relieved from rate regulation
2006 275 $14.77 0.230
2007 107 $17.21 0.368Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
2006 99 $15.39 0.305
2007 55 $16.41 0.445Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
2006 51 $14.48 0.362
2007 52 $20.11 0.537Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
2006 48 $18.73 0.525
2007 77 $16.40 0.396DBS subgroup
2006 76 $14.91 0.338
2007 33 $14.05 0.515Wireless MVPD subgroup
2006 32 $12.39 0.306
2007 68 $16.77 0.344Low penetration test subgroup
2006 68 $15.51 0.354
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Monthly programming expense per subscriber is approximated by dividing yearly programming cost by end of 
year basic cable service subscribers, dividing by 12 months.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
54
Attachment 8
Basic Cable Service Channels, by Category
January 1, 2006
By Category of ChannelNumber of 
Channels on 
the Basic 
Cable 
Service Tier
Local 
Broadcast 
Stations
Public, 
Educational, 
& 
Governmental 
Access (PEG)
Commercial 
Leased 
Access
Other 
ChannelsSample Group N
Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.
Sample groups overall 754 24.8 0.416 12.2 0.185 3.3 0.107 0.7 0.042 8.6 0.471
Noncompetitive 
Communities 434 24.9 0.470 12.4 0.209 3.3 0.121 0.7 0.047 8.5 0.532
Communities relieved 
from rate regulation 320 24.0 0.449 10.8 0.204 2.7 0.106 0.8 0.062 9.8 0.51
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 108 24.8 0.416 11.1 0.381 2.5 0.181 0.7 0.089 9.1 1.024
2nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents)
54 24.9 0.470 10.4 0.483 2.2 0.209 0.8 0.116 10.4 1.228
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals) 54 24.0 0.449 13.3 0.498 3.3 0.359 0.3 0.087 5.3 1.806
DBS subgroup 125 24.7 0.661 10.6 0.280 2.9 0.141 0.9 0.097 10.3 0.706
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 31 23.5 0.825 10.4 0.540 2.5 0.347 0.7 0.131 10.0 1.158
Low penetration test 
subgroup 56 21.2 0.916 12.8 0.556 2.4 0.329 0.3 0.089 5.7 1.049
Source:  2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
55
Attachment 8-b
Basic Cable Service Channels, by Category
January 1, 2008
By Category of ChannelNumber of 
Channels on 
the Basic 
Cable 
Service Tier
Local 
Broadcast 
Stations
Public, 
Educational, 
& 
Governmental 
Access (PEG)
Commercial 
Leased 
Access
Other 
ChannelsSample Group N
Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.
Sample groups overall 674 26.7 0.482 12.7 0.232 2.8 0.099 0.7 0.039 10.0 0.446
Noncompetitive 
Communities 388 26.8 0.566 12.7 0.263 2.8 0.115 0.6 0.045 9.8 0.460
Communities relieved 
from rate regulation 286 25.9 0.740 12.9 0.471 2.8 0.169 0.9 0.073 10.9 1.320
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 107 25.3 0.990 11.4 0.498 2.8 0.300 0.6 0.096 9.9 0.905
2nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents)
55 23.7 1.017 11.1 0.603 2.7 0.376 0.8 0.122 8.5 0.936
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals) 52 31.2 2.716 12.3 0.733 3.1 0.257 0.2 0.051 15.1 2.450
DBS subgroup 78 26.8 1.098 13.4 0.711 3.0 0.244 1.1 0.106 12.3 2.035
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 33 22.7 0.856 13.7 0.523 2.2 0.171 1.0 0.141 5.9 0.669
Low penetration test 
subgroup 68 23.3 1.135 11.6 0.486 1.7 0.206 0.9 0.120 6.9 0.932
Source:  2007/2008 survey.  Note:  Channels by category were not collected for year 2007.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
56
Attachment 9
Average Number of Channels
January 1, 2006 January 1, 2005
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 754 24.8 0.416 754 24.5 0.410
Cable programming service 754 46.2 0.429 754 46.0 0.435Sample groups overall
Expanded basic service 754 71.0 0.276 754 70.5 0.285
Basic cable service 434 24.9 0.470 434 24.6 0.462
Cable programming service 434 45.7 0.484 434 45.5 0.491Noncompetitive Communities
Expanded basic service 434 70.6 0.311 434 70.0 0.321
Basic cable service 320 24.0 0.449 320 24.2 0.498
Cable programming service 320 50.0 0.463 320 49.7 0.516Communities relieved from rate regulation
Expanded basic service 320 74.0 0.361 320 73.9 0.360
Basic cable service 108 23.4 0.850 108 23.4 0.869
Cable programming service 108 51.5 0.870 108 50.7 0.926Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
Expanded basic service 108 74.9 0.472 108 74.1 0.490
Basic cable service 54 23.7 0.988 54 23.0 0.919
Cable programming service 54 50.9 0.987 54 50.5 0.945Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
Expanded basic service 54 74.6 0.553 54 73.5 0.569
Basic cable service 54 22.3 1.664 54 24.5 2.101
Cable programming service 54 53.4 1.823 54 51.2 2.362Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
Expanded basic service 54 75.7 0.905 54 75.8 0.960
Basic cable service 125 24.7 0.661 125 24.9 0.762
Cable programming service 125 49.2 0.659 125 49.2 0.764DBS subgroup
Expanded basic service 125 73.9 0.579 125 74.1 0.576
Basic cable service 31 23.5 0.825 31 23.5 0.814
Cable programming service 31 50.2 1.041 31 50.2 1.022Wireless MVPD subgroup
Expanded basic service 31 73.7 0.703 31 73.7 0.669
Basic cable service 56 21.2 0.916 56 21.8 0.941
Cable programming service 56 49.6 1.513 56 48.8 1.702Low penetration test subgroup
Expanded basic service 56 70.8 1.233 56 70.5 1.272
Source:  2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
57
Attachment 9-a
Average Number of Channels
January 1, 2007 January 1, 2006
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 669 26.3 0.470 618 25.6 0.479
Cable programming service 669 46.3 0.553 618 45.9 0.523Sample groups overall
Expanded basic service 669 72.6 0.517 618 71.5 0.335
Basic cable service 383 26.3 0.551 355 25.7 0.562
Cable programming service 383 46.1 0.648 355 45.4 0.607Noncompetitive Communities
Expanded basic service 383 72.5 0.614 355 71.1 0.371
Basic cable service 286 25.9 0.722 263 24.9 0.691
Cable programming service 286 47.2 0.883 263 48.6 0.853Communities relieved from rate regulation
Expanded basic service 286 73.0 0.674 263 73.4 0.783
Basic cable service 107 24.6 0.954 98 23.6 0.911
Cable programming service 107 50.9 1.236 98 50.8 1.157Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
Expanded basic service 107 75.5 0.884 98 74.5 0.721
Basic cable service 55 22.8 0.962 54 22.9 0.962
Cable programming service 55 50.8 1.173 54 51.1 1.202Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
Expanded basic service 55 73.6 0.809 54 74.1 0.786
Basic cable service 52 31.2 2.706 44 26.6 2.475
Cable programming service 52 51.1 3.821 44 49.5 3.273Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
Expanded basic service 52 82.3 2.851 44 76.2 1.770
Basic cable service 78 26.9 1.069 67 25.8 1.062
Cable programming service 78 45.4 1.308 67 47.5 1.310DBS subgroup
Expanded basic service 78 72.3 1.002 67 73.3 1.240
Basic cable service 33 23.7 0.947 32 23.3 0.788
Cable programming service 33 50.2 0.975 32 50.3 0.969Wireless MVPD subgroup
Expanded basic service 33 73.9 0.787 32 73.6 0.620
Basic cable service 68 23.1 1.104 66 23.0 1.120
Cable programming service 68 47.8 1.186 66 47.8 1.229Low penetration test subgroup
Expanded basic service 68 70.8 0.919 66 70.8 0.910
Source:  2007/2008 cable price survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
58
Attachment 9-b
Average Number of Channels
January 1, 2008 January 1, 2007
Sample Group Programming Service Tier N Mean Std. 
Error N Mean
Std. 
Error
Basic cable service 674 26.7 0.482 669 26.3 0.470
Cable programming service 674 46.2 0.576 669 46.3 0.553Sample groups overall
Expanded basic service 674 72.8 0.543 669 72.6 0.517
Basic cable service 388 26.8 0.566 383 26.3 0.551
Cable programming service 388 46.0 0.676 383 46.1 0.648Noncompetitive Communities
Expanded basic service 388 72.8 0.647 383 72.5 0.614
Basic cable service 286 25.9 0.740 286 25.9 0.722
Cable programming service 286 47.1 0.878 286 47.2 0.883Communities relieved from rate regulation
Expanded basic service 286 73.0 0.671 286 73.0 0.674
Basic cable service 107 25.3 0.990 107 24.6 0.954
Cable programming service 107 50.8 1.283 107 50.9 1.236Second cable operator subgroup (overall)
Expanded basic service 107 76.1 0.925 107 75.5 0.884
Basic cable service 55 23.7 1.017 55 22.8 0.962
Cable programming service 55 50.3 1.221 55 50.8 1.173Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents)
Expanded basic service 55 74.0 0.826 55 73.6 0.809
Basic cable service 52 31.2 2.716 52 31.2 2.706
Cable programming service 52 52.4 3.955 52 51.1 3.821Second cable operator subgroup (rivals)
Expanded basic service 52 83.6 3.054 52 82.3 2.851
Basic cable service 78 26.8 1.098 78 26.9 1.069
Cable programming service 78 45.6 1.292 78 45.4 1.308DBS subgroup
Expanded basic service 78 72.4 0.992 78 72.3 1.002
Basic cable service 33 22.7 0.856 33 23.7 0.947
Cable programming service 33 49.1 1.099 33 50.2 0.975Wireless MVPD subgroup
Expanded basic service 33 71.8 0.867 33 73.9 0.787
Basic cable service 68 23.3 1.135 68 23.1 1.104
Cable programming service 68 46.9 1.161 68 47.8 1.186Low penetration test subgroup
Expanded basic service 68 70.1 0.892 68 70.8 0.919
Source:  2007/2008 cable price survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
59
Attachment 10
Other Programming Channels
January 1, 2006
Local Broadcast Stations 
in HD Format (1)
Most Highly Subscribed 
Digital Tier (2)Sample Group
N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E.
Sample groups overall 754 4.3 0.08 725 40.6 0.81
Noncompetitive Communities 434 4.3 0.08 416 41.0 0.91
Communities relieved from rate regulation 320 4.1 0.13 309 37.7 0.91
Second cable operator subgroup (overall) 108 4.6 0.22 103 38.4 1.15
Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents) 54 4.6 0.27 53 37.0 1.44
Second cable operator subgroup (rivals) 54 4.6 0.30 50 42.6 1.55
DBS subgroup 125 3.5 0.19 123 39.7 1.45
Wireless MVPD subgroup 31 5.2 0.28 31 29.6 1.99
Low penetration test subgroup 56 2.5 0.30 52 35.4 1.90
Source:  2006 survey.
(1)  Video channels showing re-transmissions in digital high definition of local broadcast stations, requiring lease of 
a high definition set-top converter.
(2)  The digital cable programming service tier with the highest number of subscribers, generally requiring lease of a 
digital set-top converter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
60
Attachment 10-a
Other Programming Channels
January 1, 2007
Local Broadcast Stations 
in HD Format (1)
Most Highly Subscribed 
Digital Tier (2)Sample Group
N Mean S.E. Mean Mean S.E.
Sample groups overall 672 5.0 0.09 620 37.5 0.64
Noncompetitive Communities 387 4.9 0.10 348 37.1 0.71
Communities relieved from rate regulation 285 5.4 0.25 272 39.3 1.46
Second cable operator subgroup (overall) 107 5.6 0.34 96 40.5 1.39
Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents) 55 5.9 0.42 55 39.4 1.65
Second cable operator subgroup (rivals) 52 4.5 0.36 41 45.4 1.77
DBS subgroup 78 5.2 0.37 76 39.7 2.21
Wireless MVPD subgroup 33 6.5 0.39 33 35.7 1.81
Low penetration test subgroup 67 3.6 0.31 67 38.5 1.58
Source: 2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Video channels showing re-transmissions in digital high definition of local broadcast stations, requiring lease of 
a high definition set-top converter.
(2)  The digital cable programming service tier with the highest number of subscribers, generally requiring lease of a 
digital set-top converter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
61
Attachment 10-b
Other Programming Channels
January 1, 2008
Local Broadcast Stations 
in HD Format (1)
Most Highly Subscribed 
Digital Tier (2)Sample Group
N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E.
Sample groups overall 673 5.6 0.10 635 40.4 0.66
Noncompetitive Communities 388 5.5 0.11 357 40.1 0.72
Communities relieved from rate regulation 285 6.1 0.25 278 41.4 1.61
Second cable operator subgroup (overall) 107 6.2 0.37 101 42.0 1.37
Second cable operator subgroup (incumbents) 55 6.5 0.46 55 40.9 1.65
Second cable operator subgroup (rivals) 52 5.3 0.36 46 46.2 1.81
DBS subgroup 78 6.0 0.37 76 42.1 2.46
Wireless MVPD subgroup 33 7.3 0.36 33 37.8 1.97
Low penetration test subgroup 67 3.9 0.32 68 37.7 1.32
Source: 2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Video channels showing re-transmissions in digital high definition of local broadcast stations, requiring lease of 
a high definition set-top converter.
(2)  The digital cable programming service tier with the highest number of subscribers, generally requiring lease of a 
digital set-top converter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
62
Attachment 11
Prices for Subscriber Equipment  (1)
Analog Digital High Definition CableCARD
Sample Group Jan. 1 N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E.
2006 495 $4.86 0.089 729 $5.19 0.081 649 $7.11 0.100 671 $1.19 0.048Sample groups 
overall 2005 549 $4.61 0.091 727 $5.05 0.084 622 $6.98 0.102 636 $1.16 0.049
2006 304 $4.81 0.098 419 $5.14 0.092 376 $7.08 0.113 393 $1.14 0.054Noncompetitive 
Communities 2005 328 $4.56 0.102 417 $5.02 0.095 362 $6.94 0.115 379 $1.10 0.055
2006 191 $5.22 0.135 310 $5.55 0.105 273 $7.31 0.125 278 $1.56 0.048Communities 
relieved from 
rate regulation 2005 221 $4.93 0.136 310 $5.26 0.124 260 $7.24 0.133 257 $1.58 0.051
2006 67 $4.46 0.226 99 $5.85 0.221 94 $7.75 0.228 90 $1.76 0.1092nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(overall) 2005 82 $4.30 0.247 99 $5.18 0.295 92 $7.74 0.253 80 $1.88 0.120
2006 29 $4.92 0.313 54 $5.56 0.280 52 $7.66 0.276 52 $1.32 0.1162nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents) 2005 43 $4.58 0.317 54 $4.72 0.374 50 $7.63 0.312 45 $1.35 0.127
2006 38 $3.43 0.214 45 $6.88 0.170 42 $8.06 0.329 38 $3.50 0.2842nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(rivals) 2005 39 $3.39 0.208 45 $6.77 0.194 42 $8.11 0.330 35 $3.91 0.317
2006 76 $5.54 0.218 125 $5.48 0.141 109 $7.45 0.190 113 $1.64 0.045
DBS subgroup
2005 82 $5.16 0.215 125 $5.28 0.161 103 $7.35 0.201 110 $1.64 0.046
2006 27 $5.29 0.199 31 $5.40 0.235 31 $6.09 0.219 31 $0.94 0.181Wireless 
MVPD 
subgroup 2005 28 $5.37 0.212 31 $5.40 0.234 31 $6.07 0.214 30 $0.91 0.185
2006 21 $5.20 0.326 55 $4.96 0.343 39 $7.71 0.206 44 $1.76 0.062Low 
penetration test 
subgroup 2005 29 $4.34 0.396 55 $4.87 0.344 34 $7.90 0.280 37 $1.75 0.072
Source: 2006 survey.
(1)  Except for the CableCARD, monthly price is for lease of an addressable converter box and remote control.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
63
Attachment 11-a
Prices for Subscriber Equipment  (1)
Analog Digital High Definition CableCARD
Sample Group Jan. 1 N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E.
2007 353 $4.28 0.127 556 $5.38 0.082 566 $7.86 0.125 589 $1.25 0.059Sample groups 
overall 2006 335 $4.39 0.127 525 $5.42 0.081 528 $7.62 0.128 535 $1.10 0.054
2007 205 $4.17 0.148 315 $5.34 0.096 308 $7.85 0.146 328 $1.16 0.070Noncompetitive 
Communities 2006 196 $4.24 0.145 298 $5.35 0.094 292 $7.60 0.148 302 $1.02 0.063
2007 148 $4.81 0.208 241 $5.58 0.127 258 $7.93 0.216 261 $1.65 0.088Communities 
relieved from 
rate regulation 2006 139 $5.15 0.244 227 $5.70 0.136 236 $7.70 0.218 233 $1.51 0.088
2007 51 $4.60 0.322 86 $5.84 0.209 97 $7.98 0.243 91 $1.84 0.1122nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(overall) 2006 52 $4.64 0.314 80 $6.02 0.217 91 $7.96 0.239 80 $1.68 0.104
2007 31 $4.79 0.381 54 $5.78 0.237 54 $7.57 0.279 55 $1.71 0.1262nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents) 2006 32 $4.83 0.369 53 $5.91 0.244 54 $7.64 0.267 54 $1.56 0.114
2007 20 $3.59 0.215 32 $6.21 0.368 43 $9.75 0.480 36 $2.52 0.2312nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(rivals) 2006 20 $3.59 0.215 27 $6.75 0.354 37 $9.56 0.521 26 $2.51 0.224
2007 46 $4.86 0.304 72 $5.45 0.173 72 $8.21 0.326 76 $1.71 0.127
DBS subgroup
2006 38 $5.35 0.389 65 $5.54 0.189 60 $7.89 0.348 62 $1.56 0.133
2007 28 $5.01 0.283 17 $6.47 0.392 32 $6.20 0.224 33 $1.09 0.182Wireless 
MVPD 
subgroup 2006 28 $5.33 0.253 17 $6.47 0.392 32 $6.20 0.224 31 $1.02 0.183
2007 23 $3.81 0.455 66 $5.20 0.186 57 $7.99 0.271 61 $1.26 0.118Low 
penetration test 
subgroup 2006 21 $3.89 0.494 65 $5.41 0.195 53 $7.96 0.276 60 $1.24 0.120
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Except for the CableCARD column, monthly price is to lease an addressable converter box and remote control.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
64
Attachment 11-b
Prices for Subscriber Equipment  (1)
Analog Digital High Definition CableCARD
Sample Group Jan. 1 N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E.
2008 338 $3.86 0.122 555 $5.16 0.090 579 $8.22 0.116 602 $1.44 0.067Sample groups 
overall 2007 353 $4.28 0.127 556 $5.38 0.082 566 $7.86 0.125 589 $1.25 0.059
2008 201 $3.75 0.141 320 $5.10 0.105 317 $8.26 0.134 335 $1.33 0.079Noncompetitive 
Communities 2007 205 $4.17 0.148 315 $5.34 0.096 308 $7.85 0.146 328 $1.16 0.070
2008 137 $4.36 0.220 235 $5.43 0.150 262 $8.06 0.207 267 $1.90 0.105Communities 
relieved from 
rate regulation 2007 148 $4.81 0.208 241 $5.58 0.127 258 $7.93 0.216 261 $1.65 0.088
2008 48 $4.48 0.365 85 $5.97 0.212 98 $8.03 0.243 96 $2.08 0.1332nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(overall) 2007 51 $4.60 0.322 86 $5.84 0.209 97 $7.98 0.243 91 $1.84 0.112
2008 30 $4.61 0.427 54 $5.90 0.241 55 $7.59 0.275 55 $1.94 0.1542nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents) 2007 31 $4.79 0.381 54 $5.78 0.237 54 $7.57 0.279 55 $1.71 0.126
2008 18 $3.77 0.258 31 $6.42 0.353 43 $9.98 0.506 41 $2.71 0.2192nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(rivals) 2007 20 $3.59 0.215 32 $6.21 0.368 43 $9.75 0.480 36 $2.52 0.231
2008 46 $4.49 0.308 72 $5.19 0.204 74 $8.27 0.312 76 $1.95 0.152
DBS subgroup
2007 46 $4.86 0.304 72 $5.45 0.173 72 $8.21 0.326 76 $1.71 0.127
2008 20 $3.63 0.271 17 $6.48 0.547 33 $6.95 0.195 33 $1.42 0.242Wireless 
MVPD 
subgroup 2007 28 $5.01 0.283 17 $6.47 0.392 32 $6.20 0.224 33 $1.09 0.182
2008 23 $3.33 0.361 61 $5.19 0.228 57 $8.04 0.328 62 $1.47 0.160Low 
penetration test 
subgroup 2007 23 $3.81 0.455 66 $5.20 0.186 57 $7.99 0.271 61 $1.26 0.118
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
(1)  Except for the CableCARD, monthly price is to lease an addressable converter box and remote control.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
65
Attachment 12
Cable Service Installation Charges
January 1, 2006 January 1, 2005Sample Group Type of Installation
N Mean S.E N Mean S.E
Unwired residence 747 $45.96 0.357 749 $46.11 0.381
Pre-wired residence 754 $32.47 0.392 754 $32.58 0.398
Service reconnection 752 $28.67 0.338 752 $28.70 0.328
CableCARD, existing customer 753 $20.47 0.696 752 $19.63 0.699
Sample groups overall
CableCARD, new customer 753 $22.24 0.787 752 $21.20 0.783
Unwired residence 432 $45.99 0.400 434 $46.24 0.428
Pre-wired residence 434 $32.47 0.440 434 $32.60 0.446
Service reconnection 433 $28.60 0.378 433 $28.63 0.367
CableCARD, existing customer 433 $20.77 0.784 432 $19.92 0.787
Noncompetitive 
Communities
CableCARD, new customer 433 $22.59 0.885 432 $21.51 0.880
Unwired residence 315 $45.75 0.537 315 $45.24 0.526
Pre-wired residence 320 $32.49 0.594 320 $32.45 0.581
Service reconnection 319 $29.12 0.535 319 $29.18 0.512
CableCARD, existing customer 320 $18.30 0.907 320 $17.57 0.926
Communities relieved 
from rate regulation
CableCARD, new customer 320 $19.72 1.079 320 $19.07 1.090
Unwired residence 103 $42.50 0.893 103 $43.04 0.919
Pre-wired residence 108 $31.60 1.022 108 $31.68 1.014
Service reconnection 107 $26.52 0.872 107 $26.92 0.856
CableCARD, existing customer 108 $16.58 1.242 108 $14.99 1.392
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall)
CableCARD, new customer 108 $15.87 1.513 108 $13.67 1.619
Unwired residence 54 $43.13 0.671 54 $43.86 0.724
Pre-wired residence 54 $30.08 0.893 54 $30.24 0.881
Service reconnection 53 $26.45 1.092 53 $27.01 1.070
CableCARD, existing customer 54 $20.25 1.547 54 $17.92 1.741
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (incumbents)
CableCARD, new customer 54 $19.20 1.920 54 $16.25 2.069
Unwired residence 49 $40.46 3.090 49 $40.40 3.106
Pre-wired residence 54 $36.06 3.043 54 $35.91 3.038
Service reconnection 54 $26.70 1.256 54 $26.66 1.246
CableCARD, existing customer 54 $5.83 1.815 54 $6.39 1.974
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals)
CableCARD, new customer 54 $6.11 1.927 54 $6.11 1.927
Unwired residence 125 $46.01 0.810 125 $45.20 0.752
Pre-wired residence 125 $33.12 0.857 125 $32.79 0.821
Service reconnection 125 $30.30 0.727 125 $30.21 0.675
CableCARD, existing customer 125 $19.72 1.155 125 $19.47 1.157
DBS subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 125 $22.59 1.507 125 $22.76 1.502
Unwired residence 31 $49.72 1.077 31 $48.52 1.315
Pre-wired residence 31 $31.29 1.481 31 $32.09 1.552
Service reconnection 31 $29.45 1.726 31 $29.49 1.725
CableCARD, existing customer 31 $16.57 3.612 31 $15.94 3.647
Wireless MVPD subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 31 $16.57 3.612 31 $15.94 3.647
Unwired residence 56 $50.18 1.863 56 $49.29 1.864
Pre-wired residence 56 $35.54 1.709 56 $35.05 1.660
Service reconnection 56 $28.79 0.965 56 $28.89 0.954
CableCARD, existing customer 56 $16.34 2.172 56 $13.77 1.612
Low penetration test 
subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 56 $17.41 2.770 56 $15.39 2.286
Source:  2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
66
Attachment 12-a
Cable Service Installation Charges
January 1, 2007 January 1, 2006Sample Group Type of Installation
N Mean S.E N Mean S.E
Unwired residence 670 $45.97 0.483 637 $45.44 0.498
Pre-wired residence 670 $32.89 0.473 636 $32.31 0.442
Service reconnection 670 $28.89 0.459 635 $28.15 0.452
CableCARD, existing customer 642 $22.56 0.603 600 $21.74 0.616
Sample groups 
overall
CableCARD, new customer 641 $26.51 0.729 599 $26.10 0.731
Unwired residence 384 $45.84 0.573 364 $45.50 0.587
Pre-wired residence 384 $32.80 0.551 364 $32.19 0.511
Service reconnection 384 $29.01 0.541 363 $28.34 0.531
CableCARD, existing customer 366 $22.15 0.690 345 $21.66 0.706
Noncompetitive 
Communities
CableCARD, new customer 366 $25.76 0.845 345 $25.90 0.850
Unwired residence 286 $46.56 0.656 273 $45.20 0.687
Pre-wired residence 286 $33.33 0.788 272 $32.91 0.769
Service reconnection 286 $28.38 0.666 272 $27.26 0.645
CableCARD, existing customer 276 $24.37 1.173 255 $22.13 1.153
Communities 
relieved from 
rate regulation
CableCARD, new customer 275 $29.86 1.289 254 $27.02 1.201
Unwired residence 107 $44.09 1.263 102 $43.00 1.027
Pre-wired residence 107 $31.80 1.035 102 $31.01 0.973
Service reconnection 107 $27.20 1.248 102 $25.57 1.174
CableCARD, existing customer 102 $19.81 1.537 92 $18.27 1.696
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup 
(overall) CableCARD, new customer 102 $21.94 1.818 92 $20.38 1.902
Unwired residence 55 $44.52 1.010 54 $44.89 1.064
Pre-wired residence 55 $31.70 1.131 54 $31.03 1.026
Service reconnection 55 $25.98 1.524 54 $24.34 1.413
CableCARD, existing customer 55 $22.63 1.829 54 $20.54 1.961
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents) CableCARD, new customer 55 $25.74 2.203 54 $24.13 2.272
Unwired residence 52 $42.52 4.555 48 $35.75 2.833
Pre-wired residence 52 $32.14 2.474 48 $30.96 2.584
Service reconnection 52 $31.63 1.672 48 $30.29 1.676
CableCARD, existing customer 47 $8.50 2.335 38 $7.24 2.814
Second cable 
operator 
subgroup (rivals)
CableCARD, new customer 47 $6.71 2.209 38 $2.10 1.515
Unwired residence 78 $46.68 0.901 70 $44.97 1.024
Pre-wired residence 78 $34.27 1.150 70 $33.83 1.158
Service reconnection 78 $29.18 0.946 70 $27.63 0.937
CableCARD, existing customer 78 $25.91 1.678 69 $23.48 1.679
DBS subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 78 $33.00 1.858 69 $29.33 1.753
Unwired residence 33 $50.82 1.552 33 $50.02 1.185
Pre-wired residence 33 $30.66 1.572 32 $31.46 1.482
Service reconnection 33 $25.66 0.798 32 $27.52 0.876
CableCARD, existing customer 33 $27.48 2.990 32 $24.98 2.603
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 33 $31.63 2.629 32 $31.23 2.252
Unwired residence 68 $46.23 1.289 68 $46.39 1.023
Pre-wired residence 68 $33.03 1.427 68 $32.76 0.940
Service reconnection 68 $28.56 1.247 68 $29.13 1.207
CableCARD, existing customer 63 $15.65 1.644 62 $15.00 1.555
Low penetration 
test subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 62 $16.30 1.776 61 $16.32 1.717
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
67
Attachment 12-b
Cable Service Installation Charges
January 1, 2008 January 1, 2007Sample Group Type of Installation
N Mean S.E N Mean S.E
Unwired residence 673 $45.11 0.575 670 $45.97 0.483
Pre-wired residence 673 $32.68 0.534 670 $32.89 0.473
Service reconnection 673 $28.91 0.489 670 $28.89 0.459
CableCARD, existing customer 650 $23.04 0.630 642 $22.56 0.603
Sample groups 
overall
CableCARD, new customer 650 $27.07 0.729 641 $26.51 0.729
Unwired residence 387 $44.86 0.675 384 $45.84 0.573
Pre-wired residence 387 $32.36 0.623 384 $32.80 0.551
Service reconnection 387 $28.84 0.576 384 $29.01 0.541
CableCARD, existing customer 371 $22.63 0.724 366 $22.15 0.690
Noncompetitive 
Communities
CableCARD, new customer 371 $26.29 0.840 366 $25.76 0.845
Unwired residence 286 $46.27 0.882 286 $46.56 0.656
Pre-wired residence 286 $34.11 0.879 286 $33.33 0.788
Service reconnection 286 $29.20 0.699 286 $28.38 0.666
CableCARD, existing customer 279 $24.86 1.191 276 $24.37 1.173
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
CableCARD, new customer 279 $30.53 1.342 275 $29.86 1.289
Unwired residence 107 $43.99 1.515 107 $44.09 1.263
Pre-wired residence 107 $31.68 1.126 107 $31.80 1.035
Service reconnection 107 $27.45 1.305 107 $27.20 1.248
CableCARD, existing customer 105 $21.26 1.728 102 $19.81 1.537
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(overall)
CableCARD, new customer 105 $23.68 1.967 102 $21.94 1.818
Unwired residence 55 $44.13 1.465 55 $44.52 1.010
Pre-wired residence 55 $32.50 1.239 55 $31.70 1.131
Service reconnection 55 $27.25 1.583 55 $25.98 1.524
CableCARD, existing customer 55 $23.59 2.021 55 $22.63 1.829
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
CableCARD, new customer 55 $27.04 2.344 55 $25.74 2.203
Unwired residence 52 $43.49 4.569 52 $42.52 4.555
Pre-wired residence 52 $28.68 2.633 52 $32.14 2.474
Service reconnection 52 $28.16 1.880 52 $31.63 1.672
CableCARD, existing customer 50 $12.49 3.147 47 $8.50 2.335
Second cable 
operator subgroup 
(rivals)
CableCARD, new customer 50 $11.01 3.142 47 $6.71 2.209
Unwired residence 78 $45.80 1.254 78 $46.68 0.901
Pre-wired residence 78 $34.89 1.295 78 $34.27 1.150
Service reconnection 78 $29.66 0.995 78 $29.18 0.946
CableCARD, existing customer 78 $25.63 1.698 78 $25.91 1.678
DBS subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 78 $32.79 1.945 78 $33.00 1.858
Unwired residence 33 $53.13 1.735 33 $50.82 1.552
Pre-wired residence 33 $34.27 1.551 33 $30.66 1.572
Service reconnection 33 $29.03 0.811 33 $25.66 0.798
CableCARD, existing customer 33 $31.27 2.877 33 $27.48 2.990
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 33 $35.97 2.395 33 $31.63 2.629
Unwired residence 68 $47.10 1.248 68 $46.23 1.289
Pre-wired residence 68 $33.83 1.440 68 $33.03 1.427
Service reconnection 68 $30.82 1.113 68 $28.56 1.247
CableCARD, existing customer 63 $15.40 1.644 63 $15.65 1.644
Low penetration 
test subgroup
CableCARD, new customer 63 $16.82 1.893 62 $16.30 1.776
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
68
Attachment 13
Average Operating Capacity
Capacity of Cable System
(in MHz)
Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System 
Serving Their Community, January 1, 2006
2005 January 1, 2006 More than 750 MHz 750 MHz 331 - 749 MHz 330 or Less MHzSample Group
Mean N Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.
Sample groups 
overall 736 751 749 3.7 25.4% 1.9 63.9% 2.0 8.7% 1.1 2.1% 0.5
Noncompetitive 
Communities 734 433 747 4.2 25.5% 2.1 63.3% 2.2 8.9% 1.2 2.3% 0.6
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
754 318 765 4.9 24.9% 2.7 68.0% 2.8 6.7% 1.6 0.4% 0.4
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 756 106 759 5.6 13.7% 3.6 82.1% 4.1 4.2% 2.4 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents)
757 53 753 6.9 11.3% 4.4 83.0% 5.2 5.7% 3.2 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals) 756 53 777 8.2 20.8% 5.6 79.2% 5.6 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0
DBS subgroup 751 125 770 8.3 34.4% 4.3 56.0% 4.5 8.8% 2.5 0.8% 0.8
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 758 31 761 5.9 9.7% 5.4 90.3% 5.4 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Low penetration test 
subgroup 729 56 735 16.0 28.6% 6.1 46.4% 6.7 25.0% 5.8 0.0% 0.0
Sources:  2005 survey and 2006 survey. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
69
Attachment 13-a
Average Operating Capacity
Capacity of Cable System
(in MHz)
Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System 
Serving Their Community, January 1, 2007
2006 January 1, 2007 More than 750 MHz 750 MHz 331 - 749 MHz 330 or Less MHzSample Group
Mean N Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.
Sample groups 
overall 749 663 748 3.8 25.0% 2.0 63.6% 2.1 10.3% 1.2 1.1% 0.3
Noncompetitive 
Communities 747 381 744 4.4 25.0% 2.3 62.4% 2.5 11.4% 1.4 1.3% 0.4
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
765 282 766 6.4 25.5% 3.5 69.0% 3.7 5.4% 1.7 0.1% 0.1
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 759 103 766 7.9 24.2% 4.4 69.1% 5.0 6.6% 2.9 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents)
753 55 755 9.3 18.2% 5.2 74.5% 5.9 7.3% 3.5 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals) 777 48 811 13.0 47.9% 7.3 47.9% 7.3 4.2% 2.9 0.0% 0.0
DBS subgroup 770 78 768 9.5 28.2% 5.1 66.7% 5.4 5.1% 2.5 0.0% 0.0
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 761 33 764 6.5 12.1% 5.8 87.9% 5.8 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Low penetration test 
subgroup 735 68 740 14.6 23.5% 5.2 58.8% 6.0 16.2% 4.5 1.5% 1.5
Sources:  2006 survey and 2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
70
Attachment 13-b
Average Operating Capacity
Capacity in MHz Percentage of Subscribers by Capacity of Cable System Serving Their Community, January 1, 2008
2007 January 1, 2008 More than 750 MHz 750 MHz 331 - 749 MHz 330 or Less MHzSample Group
Mean N Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E.
Sample groups 
overall 748 667 759 3.8 30.5% 2.1 59.1% 2.2 9.7% 1.1 0.7% 0.2
Noncompetitive 
Communities 744 385 757 4.4 29.4% 2.4 59.1% 2.5 10.6% 1.3 0.9% 0.3
Communities 
relieved from rate 
regulation
766 282 772 6.5 35.8% 3.8 59.0% 3.9 5.2% 1.7 0.1% 0.1
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (overall) 766 103 774 6.6 32.9% 5.1 61.9% 5.4 5.2% 2.5 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup 
(incumbents)
755 55 765 7.6 29.1% 6.2 65.5% 6.5 5.5% 3.1 0.0% 0.0
2nd cable operator 
subgroup (rivals) 811 48 811 13.0 47.9% 7.3 47.9% 7.3 4.2% 2.9 0.0% 0.0
DBS subgroup 768 78 776 9.8 41.0% 5.6 53.8% 5.7 5.1% 2.5 0.0% 0.0
Wireless MVPD 
subgroup 764 33 764 6.5 15.2% 6.3 84.8% 6.3 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0
Low penetration test 
subgroup 740 68 740 14.6 23.5% 5.2 58.8% 6.0 16.2% 4.5 1.5% 1.5
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
71
Attachment 14
Availability of Various Cable Services
January 1, 2006
Availability of Service as a Percent of All Basic Cable TV SubscribersSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital programming 754 98.3% 0.5
HD programming 754 91.9% 0.9
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 754 85.5% 1.1
Internet access 754 96.9% 0.6
Sample groups overall
Telephony 754 61.4% 1.8
Digital programming 434 98.1% 0.5
HD programming 434 91.7% 0.9
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 434 85.3% 1.2
Internet access 434 96.6% 0.7
Noncompetitive Communities
Telephony 434 61.8% 2.0
Digital programming 320 99.7% 0.2
HD programming 320 93.4% 1.5
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 320 87.3% 2.0
Internet access 320 99.1% 0.4
Communities relieved from rate 
regulation
Telephony 320 58.8% 3.0
Digital programming 108 99.1% 0.7
HD programming 108 96.3% 1.7
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 108 92.6% 2.6
Internet access 108 98.1% 1.5
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
Telephony 108 70.4% 4.9
Digital programming 54 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 54 98.1% 1.9
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 54 94.4% 3.1
Internet access 54 98.1% 1.9
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
Telephony 54 70.4% 6.3
Digital programming 54 96.3% 2.6
HD programming 54 90.7% 4.0
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 54 87.0% 4.6
Internet access 54 98.1% 1.9
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
Telephony 54 70.4% 6.3
Digital programming 125 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 125 91.2% 2.5
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 125 82.4% 3.4
Internet access 125 100.0% 0.0
DBS subgroup
Telephony 125 47.2% 4.5
Digital programming 31 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 31 100.0% 0.0
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 31 100.0% 0.0
Internet access 31 100.0% 0.0
Wireless MVPD subgroup
Telephony 31 83.9% 6.7
Digital programming 56 98.2% 1.8
High definition programming 56 73.2% 6.0
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 56 62.5% 6.5
Internet access 56 85.7% 4.7
Low penetration test subgroup
Telephony 56 39.3% 6.6
Source:  2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
72
Attachment 14-a
Availability of Various Cable Services
January 1, 2007
Availability of Service as a Percent of all Basic Cable TV SubscribersSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital programming 671 97.9% 0.4
HD programming 670 91.2% 0.7
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 672 88.1% 0.9
Internet access 657 96.8% 0.6
Sample groups overall
Telephony 668 75.9% 1.7
Digital programming 385 97.9% 0.5
HD programming 384 90.7% 0.8
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 386 88.1% 0.9
Internet access 375 96.6% 0.6
Noncompetitive Communities
Telephony 383 75.4% 1.9
Digital programming 286 98.1% 1.2
HD programming 286 93.7% 1.9
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 286 88.1% 2.6
Internet access 282 97.9% 1.2
Communities relieved from rate 
regulation
Telephony 285 78.3% 3.3
Digital programming 107 98.8% 0.7
HD programming 107 94.2% 2.2
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 107 93.8% 2.3
Internet access 103 99.2% 0.6
Second cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
Telephony 107 88.9% 3.1
Digital programming 55 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 55 96.4% 2.5
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 55 96.4% 2.5
Internet access 55 100.0% 0.0
Second cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
Telephony 55 92.7% 3.5
Digital programming 52 94.2% 3.3
HD programming 52 86.5% 4.8
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 52 84.6% 5.1
Internet access 48 95.8% 2.9
Second cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
Telephony 52 75.0% 6.1
Digital programming 78 97.4% 1.8
HD programming 78 93.6% 2.8
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 78 85.9% 4.0
Internet access 78 97.4% 1.8
DBS subgroup
Telephony 77 72.7% 5.1
Digital programming 33 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 33 97.0% 3.0
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 33 97.0% 3.0
Internet access 33 100.0% 0.0
Wireless MVPD subgroup
Telephony 33 97.0% 3.0
Digital programming 68 100.0% 0.0
High definition programming 68 86.8% 4.1
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 68 75.0% 5.3
Internet access 68 94.1% 2.9
Low penetration test subgroup
Telephony 68 66.2% 5.8
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
73
Attachment 14-b
Availability of Various Cable Services
January 1, 2008
Availability of Service as a Percent of all Basic Cable TV SubscribersSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital programming 674 98.1% 0.4
HD programming 674 92.5% 0.7
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 674 91.3% 0.8
Internet access 662 97.2% 0.5
Sample groups overall
Telephony 674 88.8% 1.1
Digital programming 388 98.1% 0.4
HD programming 388 91.7% 0.8
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 388 90.7% 0.9
Internet access 380 97.0% 0.6
Noncompetitive Communities
Telephony 388 88.3% 1.2
Digital programming 286 98.3% 1.2
HD programming 286 96.0% 1.5
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 286 94.1% 1.8
Internet access 282 97.9% 1.2
Communities relieved from rate 
regulation
Telephony 286 91.1% 2.3
Digital programming 107 99.6% 0.4
HD programming 107 95.5% 2.2
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 107 96.1% 1.7
Internet access 103 99.2% 0.6
Second cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
Telephony 107 94.0% 1.9
Digital programming 55 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 55 96.4% 2.5
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 55 98.2% 1.8
Internet access 55 100.0% 0.0
Second cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
Telephony 55 98.2% 1.8
Digital programming 52 98.1% 1.9
HD programming 52 92.3% 3.7
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 52 88.5% 4.5
Internet access 48 95.8% 2.9
Second cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
Telephony 52 78.8% 5.7
Digital programming 78 97.4% 1.8
HD programming 78 96.2% 2.2
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 78 93.6% 2.8
Internet access 78 97.4% 1.8
DBS subgroup
Telephony 78 89.7% 3.5
Digital programming 33 100.0% 0.0
HD programming 33 100.0% 0.0
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 33 100.0% 0.0
Internet access 33 100.0% 0.0
Wireless MVPD subgroup
Telephony 33 100.0% 0.0
Digital programming 68 100.0% 0.0
High definition programming 68 88.2% 3.9
HD simulcast of a broadcast station 68 79.4% 4.9
Internet access 68 94.1% 2.9
Low penetration test subgroup
Telephony 68 77.9% 5.1
Source:  2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
74
Attachment 15 
Subscribers to Various Cable Services
January 1, 2006
Percent of Basic Cable TV Subscribers Who Subscribe to the ServiceSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital video programming 747 41.8% 0.6
HD video programming 745 6.7% 0.2
Cable Internet Access 745 34.8% 0.5
Circuit switched telephony 752 3.3% 0.4
Sample groups overall
VOIP telephony 746 3.4% 0.3
Digital video programming 429 41.6% 0.7
HD video programming 428 6.8% 0.2
Cable Internet Access 428 34.6% 0.6
Circuit switched telephony 434 3.3% 0.4
Noncompetitive 
Communities
VOIP telephony 428 3.4% 0.4
Digital video programming 318 43.5% 0.9
HD video programming 317 6.3% 0.3
Cable Internet Access 317 36.5% 0.9
Circuit switched telephony 318 3.5% 0.6
Communities relieved from 
rate regulation
VOIP telephony 318 3.1% 0.3
Digital video programming 106 43.3% 1.2
HD video programming 106 6.3% 0.4
Cable Internet Access 106 41.7% 1.5
Circuit switched telephony 106 7.9% 1.6
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
VOIP telephony 106 4.0% 0.5
Digital video programming 54 46.8% 1.3
HD video programming 54 7.1% 0.5
Cable Internet Access 54 38.4% 1.8
Circuit switched telephony 54 5.2% 1.7
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
VOIP telephony 54 3.2% 0.6
Digital video programming 52 32.8% 2.9
HD video programming 52 3.9% 0.4
Cable Internet Access 52 51.7% 2.9
Circuit switched telephony 52 15.9% 4.3
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
VOIP telephony 52 6.5% 1.1
Digital video programming 125 42.6% 1.3
HD video programming 124 5.8% 0.4
Cable Internet Access 125 33.5% 1.3
Circuit switched telephony 125 1.1% 0.5
DBS subgroup
VOIP telephony 125 2.8% 0.5
Digital video programming 31 46.3% 2.2
HD video programming 31 8.7% 0.8
Cable Internet Access 31 39.9% 1.9
Circuit switched telephony 31 3.8% 1.3
Wireless MVPD subgroup
VOIP telephony 31 3.0% 0.6
Digital video programming 56 46.0% 3.6
HD video programming 56 4.8% 0.7
Cable Internet Access 55 27.4% 2.7
Circuit switched telephony 56 5.4% 3.0
Low penetration test 
subgroup
VOIP telephony 56 0.4% 0.1
Source: 2006 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
75
Attachment 15-a
Subscribers to Various Cable Services
January 1, 2007
Percent of Basic Cable TV Subscribers Who Subscribe to the ServiceSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital video programming 660 46.2% 0.7
HD video programming 659 10.9% 0.3
Cable Internet Access 639 39.6% 0.5
Circuit switched telephony 647 3.5% 0.5
Sample groups overall
VOIP telephony 646 7.5% 0.4
Digital video programming 379 45.6% 0.8
HD video programming 379 10.7% 0.3
Cable Internet Access 365 39.3% 0.6
Circuit switched telephony 375 3.3% 0.6
Noncompetitive Communities
VOIP telephony 374 7.8% 0.5
Digital video programming 281 48.8% 1.4
HD video programming 280 11.9% 0.7
Cable Internet Access 274 40.5% 1.1
Circuit switched telephony 272 4.3% 0.7
Communities relieved from 
rate regulation
VOIP telephony 272 6.5% 0.6
Digital video programming 102 49.9% 1.6
HD video programming 102 11.3% 0.8
Cable Internet Access 102 46.3% 1.7
Circuit switched telephony 99 9.2% 1.7
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
VOIP telephony 99 10.4% 1.1
Digital video programming 55 50.5% 1.6
HD video programming 55 12.0% 0.9
Cable Internet Access 54 43.8% 1.9
Circuit switched telephony 55 4.2% 1.6
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
VOIP telephony 55 11.4% 1.3
Digital video programming 47 47.3% 4.3
HD video programming 47 8.4% 1.1
Cable Internet Access 48 55.9% 3.4
Circuit switched telephony 44 30.9% 5.5
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
VOIP telephony 44 6.5% 1.8
Digital video programming 78 47.6% 2.2
HD video programming 77 11.8% 1.1
Cable Internet Access 72 38.6% 1.6
Circuit switched telephony 76 2.7% 0.9
DBS subgroup
VOIP telephony 76 5.1% 0.8
Digital video programming 33 54.3% 1.8
HD video programming 33 15.8% 0.8
Cable Internet Access 33 42.6% 1.6
Circuit switched telephony 33 4.3% 1.6
Wireless MVPD subgroup
VOIP telephony 33 8.2% 1.1
Digital video programming 68 48.7% 2.0
HD video programming 68 6.2% 0.7
Cable Internet Access 67 36.8% 2.0
Circuit switched telephony 64 3.3% 1.4
Low penetration test subgroup
VOIP telephony 64 5.3% 0.8
Source: 2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
76
Attachment 15-b
Subscribers to Various Cable Services
January 1, 2008
Percent of Basic Cable TV Subscribers Who Subscribe to the ServiceSample Group
Cable Service N Mean S.E
Digital video programming 671 54.4% 0.8
HD video programming 670 17.3% 0.5
Cable Internet Access 657 44.6% 0.6
Circuit switched telephony 652 3.0% 0.5
Sample groups overall
VOIP telephony 652 14.4% 0.5
Digital video programming 388 54.0% 0.9
HD video programming 388 17.2% 0.6
Cable Internet Access 375 44.4% 0.7
Circuit switched telephony 379 2.8% 0.5
Noncompetitive 
Communities
VOIP telephony 379 14.8% 0.6
Digital video programming 283 56.3% 1.5
HD video programming 282 17.8% 0.9
Cable Internet Access 282 45.9% 1.2
Circuit switched telephony 273 3.7% 0.7
Communities relieved from 
rate regulation
VOIP telephony 273 12.5% 0.8
Digital video programming 104 56.7% 1.6
HD video programming 104 18.2% 1.1
Cable Internet Access 103 51.5% 1.8
Circuit switched telephony 99 9.3% 1.6
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(overall)
VOIP telephony 99 17.1% 1.5
Digital video programming 55 57.4% 1.7
HD video programming 55 19.0% 1.3
Cable Internet Access 55 49.3% 2.1
Circuit switched telephony 55 4.2% 1.6
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(incumbents)
VOIP telephony 55 19.0% 1.7
Digital video programming 49 54.0% 4.1
HD video programming 49 15.2% 2.0
Cable Internet Access 48 60.3% 3.5
Circuit switched telephony 44 31.1% 5.4
2nd cable operator subgroup 
(rivals)
VOIP telephony 44 9.3% 2.5
Digital video programming 78 54.8% 2.3
HD video programming 77 17.5% 1.3
Cable Internet Access 78 43.9% 1.8
Circuit switched telephony 77 2.0% 0.9
DBS subgroup
VOIP telephony 77 11.0% 1.2
Digital video programming 33 65.3% 1.9
HD video programming 33 23.1% 0.8
Cable Internet Access 33 49.0% 1.8
Circuit switched telephony 33 4.3% 1.8
Wireless MVPD subgroup
VOIP telephony 33 13.7% 1.7
Digital video programming 68 55.1% 1.9
HD video programming 68 9.4% 1.0
Cable Internet Access 68 41.6% 2.2
Circuit switched telephony 64 3.2% 1.5
Low penetration test 
subgroup
VOIP telephony 64 11.0% 1.3
Source: 2007/2008 survey.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
77
APPENDIX A 
Survey Methodology
A. Sampling Procedure
57. As explained in more detail below, our sample design for 2006 and 2007/2008 follows 
the approach used in prior years.1 Specifically, as in past years, we pick the sample from the list of cable 
operator community units the Commission assigns to each cable operator for each community served.  
Before picking the sample, we divide the list into groups (or strata) by separating them into 
noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate regulation.  In addition, we further 
break up the noncompetitive and competitive communities into smaller groups.  The noncompetitive 
community units are broken up by size.  The competitive community units are broken up by type of
competition (i.e., overbuild communities).  The sample is drawn by choosing a specific number of 
community units from each group.  The purpose of separating the data into distinct groups before 
choosing the sample is to achieve a desirable level of precision in the price estimates for each group.  
Finally, we take steps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the raw data upon which the report is 
based.  The explanation below builds on the survey methodology discussion included in prior reports by 
describing our methodology in additional detail.
58. Our samples were drawn from the list of community unit identifiers the Commission 
assigns to each cable operator for each community that a cable operator serves.2 Before drawing our 
sample, we divided the list into noncompetitive communities and communities relieved from rate 
regulation, depending on whether the Commission had made a finding of effective competition in that 
community.3 Next, we assigned each noncompetitive community to one of five subgroups (or strata) –
very large, large, medium, small, and very small – depending on the number of subscribers served by the 
cable system.4 Communities relieved from rate regulation were also assigned to subgroups –
communities with a second cable operator, with a sufficient level of DBS subscribers, within range of a 
wireless MVPD, or low penetration – depending on the primary basis for the finding of effective 
competition.5 Communities with a second cable operator were further divided into incumbent cable 
operators and rival cable operators.  Attachments 1-a and 1-b provide additional information on these 
sample groups.6  
  
1 See Appendix A at 58 and notes 12 and 16 below.
2  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1801.  
3 These effective competition findings consisted of findings made as of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008, 
respectively, for the 2006 survey and 2007/2008 survey.
4 For an explanation of stratified sampling methods, see, e.g., G. W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, Statistical 
Methods, 7th ed. (1980) at 435-59.          
5 Similar to the noncompetitive subgroups, the operators within the subgroups of communities relieved from rate 
regulation tend to have similar prices.
6 As in previous surveys, we used the most recent 1994 FCC Form 325 census of cable subscribers at the community 
level.  The census was supplemented by more current information when available from effective competition filings.  
If a cable operator serving a community was not active at the time of the census or reported a subscriber count of 1 
or less, we used average number of subscribers for the type of municipality the community represents (e.g.,
incorporated city).  For the 2007/2008 survey, we adjusted these subscriber counts by national growth in cable 
subscribers from the time of the census until 2008.  Due to this adjustment, we changed the size threshold of the
very large subgroup from 50,001 to 75,001 subscribers.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
78
59. To determine the number of communities required to achieve statistical precision in our 
samples, we applied a sampling formula.7 This formula includes parameters for the confidence interval of 
the price estimate, which we set at 95 percent probability of being within one percent of the actual price 
of expanded basic service.  After we derived the number of sample selections from the formula, we 
increased the number of selections if necessary, to a minimum number per subgroup.8 We also increased 
sample observations to account for an expected non-response rate to our survey questionnaire in each 
subgroup on the basis of previous surveys.
60. For the 2006 survey, sample size equaled 458 of the 31,743 communities in the 
noncompetitive group and 334 of 2,055 communities relieved from rate regulation.9 For the 2007/2008 
survey, the sample size equaled 412 of the 30,352 communities in the noncompetitive group and 300 of 
3,205 communities relieved from rate regulation.10
61. After determining sample sizes, we assigned every community in the subgroup a known 
probability of being included in the sample.11 Over the past years, the FCC has improved its sampling 
procedure within strata to ensure that communities in the non-continental U.S. have appropriate 
representation in the sample and to improve the FCC's ability to measure the effects of overbuilding.12
  
7 See B. J. Mandel, Statistics for Management (1984) at 258.
8 Estimates in general are reasonably robust with a minimum sample size of 30 observations.  See C. A. Boneau, The 
Effects of Violations of Assumptions Underlying the t test, Psychological Bulletin, 57 (1960) at 49-54.  
9 This 16.3 percent sampling fraction for communities relieved from rate regulation is relatively high compared to 
the noncompetitive group (1.4 percent) because there are relatively fewer communities relieved from rate regulation 
and a minimum number of sample observations are needed for statistical precision.  Details of the 2006 sample are 
reported in Attachment 1-a.
10 This 9.5 percent sampling fraction for communities relieved from rate regulation is lower than that in the 2006 
survey, reflecting growth in the group of communities relieved from rate regulation, from 2,055 to 3,205 
communities between the 2006 and 2007/2008 surveys. According to the sampling formula, larger populations 
generally require a lower sampling fraction.  The sampling fraction was also lower because price variance in the 
DBS subgroup declined between the time of the 2006 survey and 2007/2008 survey.  Lower price variance reduces 
the necessary number of sample selections. Details of the 2007/2008 sample are reported in Attachment 1-b.
11 For documentation on the method used to select our samples, see SAS Institute, SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3.  Cary, 
NC:  SAS Institute Inc. (2006) at support.sas.com.  We ran the Surveyselect Procedure, PPS method (probability 
proportional to size without replacement) with the strata and size options.  In the SAS program, the PPS method 
assigns a probability of selection, ranging from 0 to 1, for each community on the basis of size of the community.  
The program then makes random selections in accordance with those probabilities.  Not uncommon with large 
sample sizes under the PPS method, the mathematical probability initially exceeded 1 for the largest communities in 
some strata, where a value of 1 is the maximum allowable probability.  Subsequently, for sampling purposes only, 
we set a maximum community size at which no probability would exceed 1.  We adjusted the subscriber counts in 
those communities down to this maximum, as recommended in the SAS documentation.  This adjustment was made 
for sampling purposes only and in effect lowered the sampling weight of some of the largest communities.
12 This probability of selection generally depended upon our estimate of the number of subscribers in the community 
relative to all communities in the stratum.  However, if a community was a “state or federal reservation,” such as a 
military base, or a “privately owned settlement” such as a resort, it was assigned the minimum weight of 1 
subscriber. If a community was a “privately owned settlement” such as a resort, and was not part of the very large 
stratum or large stratum, it was assigned a weight of 1 subscriber. In addition, adjustments were made to the 
selection probabilities of some communities in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico.  All except 35 communities 
were assigned a weight of 1 subscriber.  The weights of the 35 communities were based on the actual number of 
subscribers.  All the communities regardless of weight were included in the sample pool.  Because these areas have a 
high number of small communities, this served to diversify the sample in stratum where we were selecting small 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
79
Because of these adjustments to the sampling procedure, in the future, the FCC may want to consider 
applying weighted averages within the strata as well.  Consistent with past reports, we calculate weighted 
average cable prices using the subscriber weights associated with the sampling strata.
62. For each community in the sample, we asked the cable operator serving the community 
to complete a questionnaire.  In communities where the Commission has made a finding of effective 
competition on the basis of competition from a rival cable operator, we asked both the incumbent and the 
second cable operator to complete a questionnaire.  We made the questionnaire available in electronic 
spreadsheet format.  Each cable operator in the sample downloaded a copy of the questionnaire from a 
Commission website and e-mailed back a completed questionnaire for each of its communities in the 
sample.  A responsible party within the company was asked to certify the completeness and accuracy of 
the company’s responses.  Some cable operators had multiple questionnaires to complete.  Because our 
sample was designed to produce overall population averages, larger cable operators were responsible for 
completing more questionnaires relative to smaller cable operators. The survey response rate (ratio of 
completed to requested questionnaires) equaled 95 percent for both the 2006 survey and the 2007/2008 
survey.13  
B. Data Quality Control
63. A number of steps were taken to improve the accuracy and reliability of the raw data 
upon which this report is based.  First, as indicated above, a responsible party within each cable operator’s 
company was asked to certify the completeness and accuracy of that company’s response.  Next, we 
systematically examined all responses returned to us in the completed questionnaires to ensure that all 
responses were complete, appeared to be reasonably accurate, and appeared reliable.  The responses were 
audited using statistical quality-control tests to identify observations with apparent inaccuracies.  For 
example, when a particular response was found to be outside of its expected reasonable range, internally 
inconsistent, or missing, we examined all of the information on that questionnaire more closely.  Finally, 
we examined the data in the tables created for the report as a second layer of quality control to ensure the 
accuracy of the underlying data.  After our examination, we contacted the cable operator in question and 
asked that the operator correct all responses on that questionnaire that appeared unreasonable, or provide 
information needed to complete missing responses.  We asked the cable operators to double-check their 
answers and revise their responses to particular questions as necessary.  In all cases, the cable operators 
we contacted cooperated with these requests and submitted revised data.14 Of the 70 MSOs and 
individual cable operators in the sample in 2006, 32 operators were asked to review their responses.  Of 
the 92 MSOs and individual cable operators in the sample in 2007/2008, 55 operators were asked to 
  
(...continued from previous page)
samples.  For example, without the adjustment up to a third of the sample in the low penetration stratum might have 
consisted of communities in Puerto Rico in close geographic proximity and operated by the same company.  Finally, 
in the 2006 survey, for the second cable operator stratum we independently sampled incumbent and rival cable 
operators. That is, selection of an incumbent did not necessarily mean that the rival in the community would be 
selected, and the other way around.  For the 2007/2008 survey, however, we selected geographic communities, with 
jointly both the incumbent and rival, selected using the SAS Surveyselect, PPS method, as described in the 
preceding footnote.
13 The supplemental survey taken in 2006 had a response rate of 90 percent.  The same operators were surveyed for 
the supplemental as for the initial survey and the pattern of responses and non-responses was similar for both 
surveys.  The higher rate of non-response was due primarily to the sale or transfer of cable systems subsequent to the 
initial survey. 
14 In some instances in which “channel lineup” information was missing or appeared incorrect, the information was 
obtained from cable operators’ publicly available websites.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
80
review their responses.  Each of these operators replied with either a data correction or reasonable 
explanation as to why a particular response was plausible.15 In the case of missing data, some cable 
operators provided the data and others explained that the company did not collect the particular 
information.  Missing values were excluded from the study. 
C. Sampling Accuracy
64. After the survey data were collected and checked, estimates of population averages and 
sampling variances were calculated for the responses to each question.  Results of these calculations are 
presented in this report.  Averages of strata were calculated as simple unweighted averages.  Industry-
wide and group averages were calculated as weighted averages of the strata.  Weights were based on the 
relative number of industry-wide or group subscribers in the stratum.
65. Because our survey is based on a sample of communities rather than a 100 percent 
census, the price averages in this report are subject to sampling variance.  Expanding the survey to 
include all communities might increase accuracy, but would also increase the cost of the report.  Our 
sample results are likely to be different from results that would be obtained if we were able to collect 
prices from all communities nationwide.  The attachments report estimates of sampling variance or 
statistical “standard error” for each price average calculated.  Standard errors can be used to express a 
degree of confidence that the true average falls within a range around a sample average.  Degree of 
confidence is usually expressed as assurance that in 95 out of 100 similar samples, the true average will 
fall within the stated range (the “95 percent confidence interval”).16 Standard errors can also identify 
whether or not differences in prices, either over time or between noncompetitive communities and 
communities relieved from rate regulation, are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level.
66. Sample designs were essentially the same for the 2005, 2006, and 2007/2008 surveys. 17  
Cable operators were asked to report cable prices and other information related to cable service as of 
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2005 for the 2006 survey and as of January 1, 2008, January 1, 2007, and 
January 1, 2006 for the 2007/2008 survey. This enables us to compute percentage changes in price over 
two-year periods.  Comparing short-term price averages and percentage changes from the same survey 
sample increases statistical confidence in the estimate of percentage change.  In addition to random 
sampling variance (a different group of cable operators is selected for each sample), change in 
compositions of the sample groups may affect the calculated average.18
  
15 In addition, we subsequently identified several extreme values in the statistical analysis stage of data review and 
removed from the database.  For example, we identified several extreme values after we transformed receipts data 
into receipts per subscriber.  We identified these values using Grubb’s test at a 99 percent probability level, and 
removed these values after concluding each resulted from measurement error.  See F. E. Grubbs, Procedures for 
Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples, Technometrics, 11, 1 (1969) at 1-21.    
16 This “95 percent confidence interval” is the range surrounding the sample average plus or minus 1.955 multiplied 
by the standard error.  For example, the price for expanded basic service as of January 1, 2006 averaged $45.25, and 
the standard error was 16 cents, as shown in Attachment 2.  We estimate at a 95 percent confidence level that the 
true average lies between $44.94 and $45.56.  We arrive at the lower end of the range by subtracting 1.955 x $0.16 
from our average of $45.25.  We arrive at the upper end by adding 1.955 x $0.16 to $45.25.
17 The 2005 survey design included a sampling rule limiting the number of observations to one community per 
county per cable operator.  This sampling rule did not produce its intended effect of increasing the diversity of cable 
operators selected.  It was therefore not used in the 2006 or the 2007/2008 surveys.
18 See, e.g., D. Holt and C. J. Skinner, Components of Change in Repeated Surveys, International Statistical Review, 
57 (1989) at 1-18.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
81
APPENDIX B 
Econometric Analysis
A. Introduction
1. Below we describe a model that examines the effects of market structure as well as demand 
and cost factors on cable prices.  The model is based on the textbook paradigm of “structure-conduct-
performance,” i.e., performance is affected by conduct (of buyers and sellers), which in turn is affected 
by structure (of the relevant market).19 A majority of the studies have used market concentration as a 
measure of structure, and price or profit as a measure of performance.  In this study, we use the same 
econometric regression analysis techniques that have been used previously and apply these techniques to 
the MVPD market to estimate the effects of market concentration on the price of cable service.20
B. Model Specification
2. Through our Price Survey, we created a data set based on responses from cable operators for 
the years 2006-2008.  Following the approach taken in previous empirical studies, we consider two 
specifications of the following log linear relationship between cable prices and market concentration 
along with other explanatory variables:  For each cable community:
Ln(Price) = ?o + ?1 ln(HHI) + ?2 ln(Income) + ?3 ln(National Subscribers) + ?4 ln(Capacity)      + ?5
ln(Density) + ?6 ln(Density Squared) + ?7 (Vertical Affiliation) + ?8 (Overbuild Competition) +      ?9 
(Local-into-Local) + ?10 ln(Channels) + ?11(2007) + ?12(2008) + ? . 
Where:
Price = price for expanded basic cable service,
HHI = the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index in the main zip code of the cable community, 
Income = median family income in the county containing the cable community,
National Subscribers = number of subscribers served by the cable operator’s parent company,
Capacity = cable plant capacity in megahertz (MHz),
Density = population density per square mile in the county containing the cable community,
  
19 The estimation of the relationship between market concentration and measures of firm performance was pioneered 
by Collins and Peterson in their 1969 study of the effects of concentration on profits in 417 industries.  N. Collins 
and L. Peterson, Price-Cost Margins and Industry Structure, Review of Economics and Statistics, 51 (Aug. 1969) at 
27-2.  Later, Weiss used a slightly different model specification to estimate the effects of concentration on 
profitability.  L. Weiss, The Concentration-Profits Relationship and Antitrust, in H. Goldschmidt et al, Industrial 
Concentration: The New Learning (1974), updated in F.M. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and 
Economic Performance, 3rd Ed. (1990) (Scherer and Ross).  Since the publication of these two seminal articles, 
regressions of profit/price on concentration have become a frequently used empirical tool in industrial organization 
literature. See, e.g., T.F. Bresnahan, Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power, R. Schmalnsee and R. 
Willig, Handbook of Industrial Organization Vol. II (1989) at Ch. 17; Scherer and Ross at 4-5;  M.D. Whinston, 
Lectures on Antitrust Economics: Chapter 3 at 27, www.csio.econ.northwestern.edu (Whinston); W.N Evans, L. 
Froeb, and G. Werden, Endogeneity in the Concentration-Price Relationship: Causes, Consequences, and Cures,
Journal of Industrial Economics (Dec. 1993) at 431-38 (Evans, Froeb, and Werden); and L. Weiss, The Structure-
Conduct-Performance Paradigm and Antitrust, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1104 (1978-79).
20 The MVPD “product market” in this study consists of cable, cable overbuilders (including telephone company 
fiber and DSL delivered video service), and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
82
Vertical Affiliation = an indicator variable indicating whether a cable operator was affiliated with one or 
more programming networks,
Overbuild Competition = an indicator variable indicating that a petition requesting a finding of effective 
competition based on a second cable operator in the community had been granted,
Local-into-Local = an indicator variable indicating that at least one DBS operator offered local broadcast 
channels in the community, 
Channels = the number of channels, including local broadcast channels, the cable operator offered on the 
expanded basic tier in each cable community,
2007 and 2008 = indicator variables for the years 2007 and 2008, and
? = error term.
3. The equation above includes variables representing market structure as well as demand and 
cost factors.  Certain variables can influence both demand and cost.  For example, the “income” variable 
can be considered both a demand and a cost factor.  Higher income is generally associated with 
increased ability to pay for cable services (thus influencing demand), but may also mean that higher 
labor cost prevails in the area, thus contributing to higher cable prices.
4. The “capacity” variable measures the cable plant capacity and represents a combination of 
cost and demand factors.  Higher MHz may enable a cable operator to provide more channels and a 
variety of services, including Internet access and telephony, which may lead to higher demand.  But 
upgrading the cable plant to provide increased capacity in MHz also requires investment capital and so 
represents a cost factor.  Cable operators have upgraded their plans both to provide advanced services 
and to meet competition from other MVPDs, particularly DBS.  The “channel” variable measures the 
number of channels offered in the expanded basic package, and thus provides a quality measure, and 
allows the capacity variable to model more closely the availability of spectrum for advanced services 
other than traditional cable video service.
5. The “density’ variable represents a cost factor.  In higher density areas, fixed costs are 
spread across a greater number of households.  Given cable operator behavior in clustering around major 
metropolitan areas, it is likely that economies of scale are associated with clustering, and thus that 
economies of scale overwhelm the marginal cost associated with serving more customers in higher-
density areas.  This would be represented by a negative sign on the density coefficient.
6. The “local-into-local” variable indicates the presence of more intense local competition from 
DBS in the MVPD market and thus may be associated with lower cable prices in the area.  Similarly the 
“overbuild competition” variable is included in the model to measure competition when a second cable 
operator is providing service in the same cable community.  Generally, as shown in the report above, the 
presence of a second wireline MVPD leads to lower prices in “overbuild” communities.21  
7. The “vertical affiliation,” “HHI,” and “national subscribers” variables are three variables 
that represent market structure in the equation.  If a vertically integrated cable operator has cost savings 
or increased efficiencies due to the ownership of or affiliation with one or more programming networks, 
  
21 In the 2005 survey we used an “effective competition” dummy variable to measure the intensity of price 
competition.  This variable included communities that met all four tests for a finding of effective competition by the 
Commission.  We believe, as shown in the report above, that the overbuild variable captures a more intense price 
competition in overbuild communities than in communities that are found to be competitive on the basis of meeting 
either the DBS or the low penetration test.  See Tables 1, 1-a, and 1-b, supra, of this report.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
83
then the prices charged by the affiliated cable operator may be lower if some of these benefits are passed 
on to consumers. 22  
8. The HHI is a measure of concentration that is calculated by summing the squared market 
shares of the participants in the market.  It is a measure of concentration that takes account of the 
distribution of the size of firms in the market.  The HHI varies with the number of firms in the market 
and degree of inequality among firm size.  Generally, the HHI increases when there are fewer firms in 
the market.
9. A positive relationship between HHI and prices is expected where a dominant firm is able to 
exploit its dominant position and charge higher prices than its competitors.  Higher prices as a result of
unilateral action by the dominant firm may in many instances lead to a loss of consumer welfare.  
However, a positive relationship between HHI and prices can also result if the markets in which firms 
have larger market shares tend to be markets with higher costs.  In these circumstances, HHI may not be 
a good indicator of market power, and higher prices may not represent a loss of consumer welfare.23
10. The variable indicating the number of nationwide subscribers indicates the overall size of 
the parent company of the cable operator.  If large cable operators have a cost advantage over smaller 
operators, then prices should be lower in areas served by a cable operator that has a large number of 
subscribers nationwide.  The year indicator variables reflect unexplained variation in cost and market 
factors over time.
11. Although the above equation provides a useful analysis of the effects of market structure and 
other demand and cost variables on prices, it may suffer from endogeneity due to a simultaneous 
relationship between market shares and prices.  Over time, markets that exhibit higher prices may attract 
increased investment, increased research and development, and the entry of new competitors, thus 
affecting market shares.  One consequence of the endogeneity of market shares is that the use of the 
ordinary least squares (OLS) technique to estimate the equation will lead to biased conclusions because 
of the correlation between the market share variable and the error term, which would violate one of the 
basic assumptions of OLS.24
12. To correct for the endogeneity of market share, we use two-stage least squares to estimate 
the equation.  This technique purges the link between an endogenous explanatory variable and the error 
term by using appropriate exogenous variables as instruments.  The selected instruments must be 
indirectly correlated with the dependent variable (price) through its effect on the endogenous explanatory 
variable (market share) but not directly correlated with price. We note that it is difficult to find variables 
that meet this test in the purest sense, so we use the variables available that most closely meet this 
definition.25 We use two variables related to market size and the cost of entry into the market as 
instruments.  Specifically, we use the following variables as instruments:  the fraction of households in 
the county that are located in an urban area and location of franchise area in terms of latitude.26 The 
  
22 See T. Chipty, Vertical Integration, Market Foreclosure, and Consumer Welfare in the Cable Television Industry,
American Economic Review (Jun. 2001) at 428-53.
23 See C.M. Newmark, Price-Concentration Studies: There You Go Again, DOJ/FTC Joint Workshop on Merger 
Enforcement, Concentration and Market Shares panel (Feb. 2004) (Newmark). 
24 For a discussion of ordinary least squares and endogeneity, see J. Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics (2003)
at Ch 15 (Woodbridge).
25 Statistical tests on the first stage of estimation indicate that the variables function reasonably well as instruments.
26 To employ a more parsimonious relationship, this study uses percent of urban households as an instrument in 
place of “number of households” and “percent of multiple dwelling units” variables used in the 2005 survey.  In 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
84
latitude variable affects consumer ability to receive DBS service; a higher latitude (i.e., further north) 
requires a dish angle pointing closer to the horizon and thus increases the probability that terrain will 
block the signal.  Similarly, in urban areas, there is a higher probability that buildings will block 
consumer ability to aim dishes at DBS satellites.27
13. We use the natural log of the variables to estimate the equation.  We choose the log linear 
form so that the estimated coefficients can be interpreted as elasticities.  HHI is based on subscriber 
information found in data from Centris.28 The cable price, cable channels, national subscribers, capacity, 
overbuild competition, local-into-local, and year dummy variables are from the price survey.  Vertical 
affiliation is based on information provided in the Video Competition Report.29 All other variables are 
from the Census Bureau.
14. The difference between the two specifications concerns the observations that are included, 
based on the overbuild variable.  In the first specification, there were 1,993 observations for which data 
were complete.  In this specification, the overbuild coefficient shows the percentage difference in price 
between markets with overbuild competition and those without competition, without distinguishing 
between the overbuilder and the incumbent.  In the second specification, the overbuilder observations are 
excluded, so that the overbuilder coefficient shows the difference in price between an incumbent cable 
operator facing overbuild competition and an incumbent cable operator not facing overbuild competition.  
This specification uses 1,846 observations.  We estimated two specifications because we wanted to 
investigate the difference between incumbent behavior and total cable operator behavior in overbuilt 
markets.  
A. Results
15. The tables below report the estimated regression coefficients. 
  
(...continued from previous page)
addition, because we replaced the “effective competition” variable with the “overbuild competition” variable in the 
second stage of estimation, overbuild competition is no longer used as an instrument.  
27 Entrants have also reported difficulty gaining access to apartment buildings, which represent a greater percentage 
of households in urban areas.
28 Centris conducts thousands of surveys of households on the use of various telecommunications services.  These 
surveys are then used to model typical telecommunications usage for various areas, and the likely usage is 
extrapolated down to the Census block level.  We matched price survey data to Centris data based on the main zip 
code in the cable community.
29 Implementation of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the 
Market for the Delivery of Video Programming), 2006 Report, adopted November 27, 2007.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
85
First Regression Estimation: Includes Both Incumbent and Overbuilder in Overbuilt Markets
Dependent Variable (Log Price) Estimated Coefficient t-Statistic
Log HHI 0.110*** 3.23
Log Income 0.042*** 3.76
Log National Subscribers 0.029*** 14.55
Log Capacity 0.074*** 3.46
Log Density -0.000 0.21
Log Density Squared 0.000 0.03
Overbuild Competition -0.112*** 12.14
Local-into-Local 0.032*** 4.22
Vertical Affiliation -0.071*** 7.84
Log Channels 0.118*** 3.92
2007 0.054*** 9.60
2008 0.106*** 16.66
Constant 0.993*** 3.25
Observations 1993 ---
Centered R-Squared 0.46 ---
Root Mean Squared Error 0.103 ---
Significant at: ***  99-percent confidence level.
Second Regression Estimation: Includes only Incumbent Observations in Overbuilt Markets 
Dependent Variable (Log Price) Estimated Coefficient t-Statistic
Log HHI 0.072** 2.26
Log Income 0.026** 2.31
Log National Subscribers 0.030*** 14.58
Log Capacity 0.071*** 3.22
Log Density -0.000 0.87
Log Density Squared 0.000 0.69
Overbuild Competition -0.141*** 10.89
Local-into-Local 0.034*** 4.43
Vertical Affiliation -0.059*** 7.01
Log Channels 0.130*** 4.06
2007 0.051*** 9.08
2008 0.100*** 16.18
Constant 1.834*** 4.91
Observations 1846 ---
Centered R-Squared 0.47 ---
Root Mean Squared Error 0.099 ---
Significant at: *** 99-percent confidence level; ** 95-percent confidence level.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
86
16. All of the estimated regression coefficients have the sign that was expected, and generally 
show high levels of statistical significance, except for the local-into-local and density variables.30 The 
three structural variables – nationwide subscribers, local HHI, and vertical affiliation – are significant at 
the 99 percent confidence level. The positive relationship between cable prices and HHI may suggest a 
structure-conduct nexus in which cable operators with high market shares wield unilateral market power 
to charge higher prices.  The estimated coefficient for cable operators with a parent company having a 
large number of nationwide subscribers is positive and significant.  This result may reflect large MSO 
market power, or may be a consequence of a greater adoption of advanced services such as digital video 
recorders (“DVRs”).  The year indicator variables are positive and significant, reflecting the general rise 
in cable prices over time.
17. A few numerical examples are helpful to illustrate the possible unilateral market power 
represented by the positive coefficient estimated for the HHI variable.  Recall that the specification is 
based on natural logs, so the coefficients represent percentage changes, and that the coefficient in the 
first equation for HHI is approximately negative 0.11.  This coefficient indicates that, all other things 
being equal, if the cable operator in a local community managed to acquire a higher market share that led 
to the HHI in that market increasing by 10 percent, cable price in that market would increase 1.1 percent.  
Similarly, if the cable operator in a local community managed to acquire a higher market share that led
to the HHI in that market increasing by 20 percent, cable price in that market would increase 2.2 percent.  
Conversely, if the cable operator in a local community lost market share so that the HHI in that market 
decreased by 10 percent, cable price in that market would decrease 1.1 percent.
18. To make the example even more concrete, consider the situation when the Verizon FiOS 
market share increases.  Suppose that the cable operator served 65 percent of MVPD households, each 
DBS provider served 12.5 percent, and Verizon served 10 percent, for an HHI of 4,637.5.  Suppose 
Verizon’s market share increased to 20 percent of MVPD households, and that 5 percent came from the 
cable operator and that 2.5 percent came from each DBS provider.  The HHI post-entry would drop 9.4 
percent to 4,200.  In this situation, based on the coefficient from the first equation, we would predict a 
one percent decrease in the price of the cable operator’s expanded basic package.  We note that the effect 
on prices of a shift in market share between incumbents and rivals is less pronounced than the effect on 
prices of initial entry as measured by the overbuild variable, which is at least ten times greater.
19. Prices are lower in franchise areas where the cable operators are vertically affiliated with 
one or more programming networks than in areas where the cable operator is not so affiliated. The 
negative coefficient for the vertically integrated variable suggests that vertically integrated operators 
pass some of their cost savings to their subscribers.  A significant and positive coefficient for the 
capacity variable indicates that prices tend to be higher in areas with higher-capacity cable systems, 
presumably reflecting higher costs of providing cable services.  A negative coefficient for the density 
variable indicates efficiencies with increasing density, resulting in lower prices.  The positive coefficient 
for density squared, however, indicates that this relationship bottoms out at some level of population 
density.  It may be that it is very expensive to maintain a system in the highest-density areas such as in 
major cities.  The estimated results also show that higher income leads to higher cable prices due to 
increased demand and/or higher labor costs.
20. One further interesting result is the fact that the magnitude of the coefficient for overbuilders 
  
30 Due to the continued roll out of DBS local-into-local service, there may be insufficient variation among 
communities to explain price changes in the model.  The density variables have the expected signs, but are not 
statistically significant.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-53
87
is greater when the overbuilders themselves are excluded.  This indicates that incumbent cable operators 
are not matching overbuilder prices, but rather are undercutting them.  Thus, the regressions indicate that 
cable operators are not accommodating entry, but instead are responding aggressively, perhaps as a 
signaling mechanism to discourage entry in other communities.  Further statistical tests would be 
required to determine the statistical significance of this result, but this finding points to an interesting 
avenue for further research.