WPCP 2HBEX@Z3|J@ (TT) X-#XP\  P6Q DXP#"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IL=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pL\\\z=zLfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhoo.Iih2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\HP LaserJet 4/4Mional); Local PrintHPLAS4.WRSS&a\  P6G;,,,["ql&P2W Ez@X X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2J=., &J\  P6Q&P7PC2, DXP\  P6QXPaticpathd PConvert File Format From: < !PO<! Kw<! PCancel *26 B1sQA2-   @ R 3|J@݌"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)2 Z_  vp?HP LaserJet 4/4Mional); Local PrintHPLAS4.WRSSX\  P6G;,,,["qlP S-#X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#&a\  P6G; &P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2kkLv\a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2\tx  BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2v  : a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2!xQQa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2Saa5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2\ Pa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2&3 !e%*&Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:@W1@4@7@;"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mCCs,?>[O6Wms[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ*7777BE7TTfTfTfTfTfTooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/oTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT\JfTxTxTxT\JxTfTfTfTfToJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TJoJ\/\EoToTxTofAfETATAN:*WTATTTTTT.3}}T2T}277\\T77TT7\72t7[[[[pee*B`p-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ7T\TT7T777\\:T7A7o\*ATTTT.T7.Tp7TB[227`W*723T}}}Tffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx\fTTTTTTToJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTJT"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic.====IL=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fRp\\\\fR\p\p\p\p\zRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\RzRf3fLz\z\\zpGpL\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=dddd|oo.Ii|2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Rzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\R\R3\\33R3\\\\GG3\RzRRGI3Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\3\=3\|=\Id77=i`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\R\"5@^%1@A @ E @IH"5@^*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW*7777BE7T\xTxTxTxTxTxxJoJoJoJoJA/A/A/A/x\TTTTx\x\x\x\xTxTx\TTxTxTf\xTxTxTxJxJxJoJoJoJTTTT\\B\A\A7A\T\o/oEx\x\TxxJxJ\A\AN:*ZT7TTTTTT27}}T2}}T}277TTT77TT7T72t7[[[[_ee*B`_-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\"5@^%1QJJz)11JT%1%)JJJJJJJJJJ11TTTJjbjjbZrr9JrbjrZrjQbjjjjb1)1UJ1JQAQA1JQ)1Q)zQJQQA91QJjJJA: :M%1111:<1JQjJjJjJjJjJjjAbAbAbAbA9)9)9)9)jQrJrJrJrJjQjQjQjQjJjJjQrJrJjJjJZQjJjJjJjAjAjAbAbAbArJrJrrJrJrQrQ:Q9Q919QJrQb)b<jQjQrJjjAjAQ9Q9N3%OJ1JJJJJJ,0nnJ,nnJn,11JJJ11JJ1J1,t1PPPPTYY%:TT(yiItyJJqqq`PCZjTjM_HjPQPWY@Z@eTpMjPtdqd]i[Yrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr%1QJJz)11JT%1%)JJJJJJJJJJ11TTTJjbjjbZrr9JrbjrZrjQbjjjjb1)1UJ1JQAQA1JQ)1Q)zQJQQA91QJjJJA: :Mrrr1JJJJ1Q1rrrr11JJ3J191jrrj%1JJJJ J1n,JT1nJ:P,,1TO%1,0JnnnJjjjjjjjbbbb9999jjrrrrrTrjjjjjZQJJJJJJjAAAAA))))JQJJJJJPJQQQQJQ"5@^!,6CCoh,,CK!,!%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`YY`RJ``,4`Rw``J`YJR``~``R,%,>C,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC,4%CC`CC;@@H!,,,,57,CC`;`;`;`;`;wYY;R;R;R;R;,%,%,%,%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`C`C`C`CJC`C`;`;Y;Y;Y;R;R;R;`C`C``C`C`C`C5C,C,,,C4`CR%R7`C`C`Cw`Y,Y7J4J4N/!C,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC,4%CC`CC;@@Hhhh,C;CC,J,whhhh,,;;/C,4,`hh`!,CCCCC,e%CK,eC5I((,M1%,p>4  pQa$6,!,|6\  P6QP .a$9,!,T94  pQ.y.G8*,G4  pQ   S-#&J\  P6Q &P#X01Í ÍX81Í Í X   ), S-#&J\  P6Q &P#3 Federal Communications Commission`j(#FCC 97409 ă  yxdddy )#,(\  P6QI,P##&J\  P6Q &P#O #&J\  P6Q &P#Before the  S-3Federal Communications Commission  X  S-&_Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S`-In the Matter of ,hh^) ` `  ,hh^)  S-Implementation of Section 3,hh^)  S-of the Cable Television,hh^)  S-Consumer Protection and,hh^)  S-Competition Act of 1992,hh^)MM Docket No. 92266 ` `  ,hh^)  SH -Statistical Report on ,hh^)  S -Average Rates for Basic,hh^)  S -Service, Cable Programming,hh^)  S -Services, and Equipment,hh^)  SX-*  #xTREPORT ON CABLE INDUSTRY PRICES  #xT  #xT    S-d  S-Adopted: December 11, 1997 hh^pp&Released: December 15, 1997  S-  S-By the Commission:  S@- I.Introduction   S- :  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1.1. ` ` Section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"),j* {OX-#C\  P6QP#э47 U.S.C. 521 et seq.j  &kwhich was added by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992  &>Cable Act"), requires the Commission to publish annually a statistical report on average rates for the  Sx- &delivery of basic cable service, other cable programming services, and equipment.xZ* yOr- &#C\  P6QP#эPub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992),  623(k), 47 U.S.C. 534(k) (1992) ( 1992 Cable Act). The 1992 Cable Act amends Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934. Specifically, Section  &.623(k) directs the Commission to compare prices charged by cable systems facing effective competition  S(- &[with those not facing effective competition.R` (* yOz - &#C\  P6QP#эUnder the 1992 Cable Act, effective competition is defined to exist: (1) where the franchise area is served by  &at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors ( MVPDs), each of which offers comparable  &video programming to at least 50% of households, and at least 15% of households subscribing to programming  &services offered by an MVPD subscribe to services other than those offered by the largest MVPD; (2) where fewer  &ithan 30% of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a cable system; or (3) where a  &,municipal cable system offers service to at least 50% of the households in the franchise area. Communications Act  &x623(l)(1)(A)(B)(C), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(A)(B)(C). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 added a fourth prong,  &finding that effective competition exists where a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any MVPD using the  &facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video programming services (other than directtohome satellite  &services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator, but only if the services so offered are comparable  &to the services provided by the cable operator. Communications Act 623(l)(1)(D), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(1)(D). This new standard has been applicable since February 8, 1996.R This report, which is based upon the results of a survey of"(,**88]"  &]cable industry prices (the "Survey"), is issued in compliance with that statutory requirement, and  S-represents the fifth survey of cable rates conducted by the Commission since 1992.& S@- &Ѝ#C\  P6QP#For the results of the four previous surveys, see Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order,  {O- &and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 93177, 8 FCC Rcd 5361 ("Benchmark  {O- &Order"), Appendix E (1993); Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Cable Regulation  {O- &YImpact Survey, Changes in Cable Television Rates Between April 5, 1993 September 1, 1993 (February 22, 1994);  {Ov- &Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Report on the Cable Services Bureau's Survey on the  {O@- &Rate Impact of the Federal Communications Commission's Revised Rate Regulations (July 14, 1994); and  {M - &Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Statistical  {O- &hReport on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming and Equipment), MM Dkt. No. 92266, Report on  {O -Cable Industry Prices, 12 FCC Rcd 3239 (1997) ("1995 Survey").   S-  S-  :  2. ` ` The information and analysis provided in this report is based upon the results of the  &=Commission's 1997 survey of cable industry prices. On June 13, 1997, the Commission issued an order  S8- & directing cable operatorsX8 yO- &;#C\  P6QP#эFor purposes of this report, a company is considered to be an operator for each Community Unit Identification  &KNumber ("CUID") it serves. Thus, if a company serves 50 CUIDs that are included in the survey, that company will be referred to herein as 50 operators. serving community unit identification numbers ("CUIDs") selected for the  &sample to respond to Commission data requests (under Section 623(k) of the Communications Act) no  S- &later than August 1, 1997.  {O^-#C\  P6QP#эOrder, MM Docket No. 92266, DA 971252, adopted June 13, 1997. In general, the Survey requested data from the cable industry as of July 1,  S- &1996 and July 1, 1997.Xh  yO- &#C\  P6QP#эThe Survey also requested data as of July 1, 1995 for the monthly charge for the operator's typical subscriber,  &the number of subscribers receiving the typical service, and the number of channels received by the typical subscriber so that changes in rates between July 1, 1995 and 1996 could be explained. Cable operators also were asked to explain the reasons for any change in their  &rates between July 1, 1995 and 1996, and between July 1, 1996 and 1997, and indicate their regulatory  & status. After the data were collected, the Commission was able to supplement the Survey data with  &information about the respondents regulatory status. Thus, the Survey, in conjunction with this additional  &information permits the Commission to compare prices and channel capacity between regulated and  S -unregulated cable operators as well as competitive and noncompetitive operators.  yO - &#C\  P6QP#эRegulated cable operators are those whose rates are regulated under the Commission's rules. Under these rules,  &local franchising authorities may become certified to regulate rates for the basic service tier, while the Commission  &regulates rates for the cable programming service tiers. Unregulated operators are operators that are not regulated  &;because local regulatory authorities have not obtained certification to regulate rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  76.910,  &and no complaint has been filed with the Commission concerning their cable programming services tiers. (The  &category of unregulated operators in this report excludes operators that are not regulated because they are subject  &to effective competition.) Although we report figures for regulated and unregulated operators, many reported  & differences between these operators are not statistically significant. Moreover, a noncompetitive unregulated operator  &may become regulated when it takes a rate increase and thus has an incentive to set rates within what our rules prescribe.  S - II.Summary of Findings  SX- : 3. ` ` Pursuant to the statutory requirement, the Survey gathered information on the prices"X ,`(`(88<"  &charged by two groups of cable operators: (1) the competitive group (made up of cable operators that  &meet the Communications Act's definition of effective competition); and (2) the noncompetitive group  &(made up of cable operators that do not face effective competition). Within the noncompetitive group,  &information was collected from regulated and unregulated operators. We report summary statistics for the sample in Attachment A. The major findings of the Survey are summarized below.  S- : 4. ` ` First, the average monthly charge for programming services and equipment rose for both  &=the competitive and noncompetitive groups. The noncompetitive group charged higher average monthly rates than the competitive group in each of the three time periods studied.  Sp- : 5. ` ` Second, subscribers who purchase cable services from regulated operators pay less, on an  &average per channel basis, for programming services and equipment, than subscribers that purchase  &services from unregulated operators. Moreover, regulated operators offer more channels than unregulated  &operators on average, and the differences in the number of channels offered and per channel rates between regulated and unregulated operators are statistically significant.  S - : 6. ` ` Third, both competitive and noncompetitive operators attribute most of their rate increases  &to increases in inflation, programming costs, channel additions, and system upgrades. Competitive and  &unregulated operators also attribute significant portions of their rate increases to increases in equipment  S-costs.   S- : o7. ` ` Fourth, both competitive and noncompetitive operators increased their average channel capacity, and had reductions in their average monthly rates per channel.  S@- : 8. ` ` Finally, we find that for both competitive and noncompetitive operators, the package of  &Nservices received by subscribers has changed over time. Both groups have increased their channel capacity and now offer subscribers additional satellite channels.  S- III.Survey Methodology  SP- A.` ` Sample  S- : 9. ` ` We used a stratified random sampling technique to collect information from two groups  &Lof cable operators. One group serves 192 communities where effective competition exists ("competitive  &group"), and the other group serves 466 communities where effective competition is absent  &("noncompetitive group"). The noncompetitive group was further divided into three size strata. The size  &Mof each stratum was determined according to the proportion of systems in each size group across the  S8- &=whole industry. z8 {O!- &#C\  P6QP#эWarren Publishing, Inc., Television and Cable Factbook, Services Volume No. 65, 1997, at F3, ("Warren  &Factbook"). Data as of October 1, 1996. We used the Warren Factbook data to create size strata. Warren reports  &Zthat 46.7% of cable subscribers purchase services from a system with 50,000 or more subscribers, 33.6% of cable  &.subscribers purchase services from a system with between 10,000 and 49,999 subscribers, and 19.7% of cable  &xsubscribers purchase cable services from a system with fewer than 10,000 subscribers. These three size categories  &Kwere used to determine the three size strata for the sample, and the percentages were used as the relative weights  yOR&-for each strata, respectively, in calculating the averages for the noncompetitive group.  The competitive group sample was drawn from two lists: a list of competitive CUIDs"8  ,`(`(88 "  S- &compiled from the 1993 cable rate survey,{  {Oh-#C\  P6QP#эSee Benchmark Order, Appendix E.{ and a list of operators serving CUIDs that the Commission  &subsequently has found to be subject to effective competition. The noncompetitive group was selected  &from among the operators serving the approximately 33,000 remaining CUIDs where effective competition  & has not been found. A total of 658 survey questionnaires were mailed to cable operators serving the selected CUIDs, and 590 completed questionnaires were returned to the Commission.  S- :  10. ` ` Of the 590 questionnaires returned to the Commission, 485 met minimum necessary data  S- &/requirements. Z yO - &#C\  P6QP#эOnly responses that included the average monthly charge, number of channels, and number of subscribers for all three survey dates were included in the analysis. The remaining 105 lacked sufficient information to be included in the Survey results.  &Completed surveys were received from 1.5% of the total universe of approximately 33,000 CUIDs.  &Operators serving these 485 CUIDs served 14.7 million subscribers, or approximately 24% of all cable  Sp- &?subscribers. p yO-#C\  P6QP#эAs of October 1, 1996 there were 61,708,291 cable subscribers. Warren Factbook at F3. Thus, the sample is sufficiently large to allow the Commission to draw meaningful statistical conclusions from the data.  S - : Q 11. ` ` Approximately 17%, or 83, of the 485 usable questionnaires belong to the competitive  S - &group.  X B yO- &#C\  P6QP#эA cable operator serving a specific CUID is categorized as competitive as of the date established by its  &application to the Commission for effective competition. The competitive sample consists of 83 CUIDs for 1997 and 63 and 65 CUIDs for 1995 and 1996, respectively. As of July 1, 1997, operators serving these 83 CUIDs provided service to approximately 1.1  &million subscribers, or 55% of the 2 million subscribers who purchase cable services from cable operators  S -that meet the conditions for effective competition.X b  yO- &#C\  P6QP#эAs of April 1993, the Commission found that effective competition existed in 243 CUIDs. Operators serving  &these CUIDs served 1.1 million subscribers. Subsequently, the Commission has found that cable operators serving an additional 880,000 subscribers meet the conditions of effective competition.  S0-  :  12. ` ` As of July 1, 1997, 21 of the 83 respondents in the competitive group report that they face  &[headtohead (overbuild) competition in the geographic area they serve. Of these, 12 respondents report  &that they face competition from a local exchange carrier ("LEC"), or a LEC affiliate. The remaining 62  &respondents meet the effective competition test either because they serve fewer than 30% of the  S- &households in their respective franchise areas (58 CUIDs) or because they face competition from a municipal provider (four CUIDs).  S- :  13. ` ` Approximately 49.5% (199) of the 402 noncompetitive group responses are from cable  &[operators subject to rate regulation ("regulated group"). These respondents provide cable services to 9.4  &million subscribers. The remaining 203 responses in the noncompetitive group are from cable operators  &not subject to rate regulation ("unregulated group"). These operators provide cable services to 4.2 million  Sx- &ysubscribers. Thus, as of July 1, 1997, the noncompetitive group consists of cable operators that provide"x ,`(`(88"  S- &service to 13.6 million subscribersX yOh- &#C\  P6QP#эThe noncompetitive group consists of 402 CUIDs for 1997 and 420 CUIDs for 1996. Eighteen of the CUIDs  &originally in the noncompetitive group met effective competition criteria between July 1, 1996 and July 1, 1997; thus, these 18 franchises were moved to the competitive group for 1997. or 23% of the 59.7 million cable subscribers that purchase services from operators that do not meet the conditions for effective competition.   S- B.` ` Variables  S8-  : % 14. ` ` For purposes of this report, six variables were selected to serve as the focus of the  &analysis. These variables are: programming services, equipment, average monthly rates, average number  &of channels received, average monthly rate per channel, and average monthly rate per satellite channel. A brief description of each variable follows.  Sp- : 15. ` ` Programming Services. This variable is the monthly price paid by subscribers for the  SH - &{basic service tier ("BST") and the most popular cable programming services tier ("CPST").H  S- &Ѝ#C\  P6QP#The basic service tier is defined as the package of channels (or tier) that includes signals from local television  &broadcast stations (such as affiliates of the major networks, independent stations, and noncommercial stations) and  &public, educational, and governmental (PEG) channels. The cable programming services tier is defined as any  &;package or tier of channels other than BST or programming offered separately as payperchannel programming or  yO-payperprogram services. Some operators offer more than one CPST tier.#&J\  P6Q &P# This  S - &excludes CPSTs that are New Product Tiers ("NPTs")h  Sh- &Ѝ#C\  P6QP#A new product tier is a type of CPST made up of channels that generally were not offered by the cable system  &prior to October 1, 1994. To be considered an NPT, a CPST must meet the conditions set forth in Section 76.987  yO-of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.987.#&J\  P6Q &P# because their rates are subject to marketbased  S - &jregulation rather than traditional rate regulation. This variable is constructed for each CUID by summing  S -the price charged for BST and CPST service.  yOH- &#C\  P6QP#эFourteen of the 83 competitive CUIDs and 30 of the 402 noncompetitive CUIDs offer their subscribers only a single tier of service.  S -  : 16. ` ` Equipment. This variable is the monthly charge paid by most subscribers for a converter  &and remote control unit. A converter may be addressable or nonaddressable. The equipment variable was  &constructed for each CUID by adding the price paid for a remote control unit and the type of converter  S-purchased by the largest number of the CUID's subscribers.X0 yO- &#C\  P6QP#эWe do not report separate figures for a converter and a remote control unit since a large proportion of the cable  &operators changed their accounting practice between 1996 and 1997 such that they no longer distinguish customers by their purchase of a particular type of converter or remote control unit.  S- : 17. ` ` Average Monthly Rate. This variable is the sum of the programming services and  &equipment charges and represents the amount charged a typical subscriber for BST and CPST (other than  &NPTs) service and equipment. Fees for other cable services, such as premium, a la carte, and payperview channels are not included in the Survey.  S- : 18. ` ` Average Number of Channels Received. This variable is the number of channels received"P,`(`(88%"  &by a typical subscriber on the BST and CPST (other than NPTs) as reported by the survey respondents.  &zAs with the monthly rate, channels devoted to premium, a la carte, and payperview services are not included.  S`- : o19. ` ` Average Monthly Rate Per Channel. This variable is calculated by dividing the average  &[monthly rate by the average number of BST and CPST (other than NPTs) channels received, as reported by the survey respondents.  S- : 20. ` ` Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite Channel. This variable is calculated by dividing the  &average monthly rate by the average number of BST and CPST (other than NPTs) satellite channels received, as reported by the survey respondents.  S - :   21. ` ` Measures of value for cable services are not easily defined. Some have variously  &suggested the average number of channels received by subscribers, satellite channels received by  S - &subscribers,  S8- &Ѝ#C\  P6QP#See, for example, Crandall, Robert W. and Harold FurchtgottRoth, Cable TV Regulation or Competition?,  S- &1996, at 127#&J\  P6Q &P#, #C\  P6QP#and Rubinovitz, Robert N., Market Power and Price Increases for Basic Cable Service Since  S-Deregulation, 1993, at 11.#&J\  P6Q &P#  and their respective per channel rates as measures of value. Alternatively, it has been  &suggested that an increase in the number of channels (satellite or otherwise) may not be similarly valued  &kacross all subscribers, or that additional channels have a declining marginal value. Because our survey  &lwas directed to cable operators, we did not specifically seek information on how consumers value  &individual channels within the BST and CPST package they receive, or how they would value these  &Lpackages if given the option of receiving fewer channels than offered. We report on the average monthly  &rate per channel and the average monthly rate per satellite channel in order to compare rates across CUIDs and over time on a comparable basis.  Sh- C.` ` Calculation of Averages for the Noncompetitive Group  S- : 22. ` ` To increase the precision of the estimates reported for the noncompetitive group, the  S- &reported averages for this group were calculated according to the following three steps. {O- &#C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#эFor an explanation of stratified sampling methodology, see, e.g., Mandel, B.J., Statistics For Management, 1984, at 259260. First, each  &noncompetitive CUID was categorized into one of three size strata according to number of subscribers  &in the CUID's system. Second, an average for each of the six primary variables was calculated for each  &Msize strata. Third, an overall average for each primary variable was calculated for the noncompetitive  &sample by weighting the average for each strata by the proportion of similarly sized systems in the  S(-industry.(r {O:"- &K#C\  P6QP#эSee footnote 9. The reported percentages for these size categories are the weights used for the calculations for the noncompetitive group. ",`(`(88."Ԍ S- @IV.Survey Results  S-  S- A. Competitive and Noncompetitive Groups  S-  S`- : 23. ` ` As required by the Communications Act, the survey results are reported for two groups:  S8- &|competitive and noncompetitive.}8 yO-#C\  P6QP#эCommunications Act, 623 (k), 47 U.S.C. 543(k).} The average monthly rates charged by the competitive and  &>@noncompetitive groups for programming services and equipment are shown in Table 1. As shown in  &Table 1, the differential between the competitive and noncompetitive groups was 6.8% in 1995 and 1996, and narrowed to 5.8% in 1997.  S- &  Sp-  ^ ddx !ddxH Fr ^     "O# Table 1: Comparison of Competitive and Noncompetitive Groups  kI GDAverage Monthly Rates   H    X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:$24.43<;"c$1.55<;"dQ 6.8%.*ddd     7/1/96,;"b $24.88,;"]>$26.57,;"c$1.69,;"dU6.8% *dd     7/1/97;"b $27.26;"]>$28.83;"c$1.57;"dT 5.8% *dd      Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote, and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant difference between competitive and noncompetitive groups at 95% level of confidence. See Attachment D2 for standard errors for the reported averages.   S-   S4- : d24. ` ` Rates charged by individual CUIDs are affected by factors other than competitive status.  S - &For example, size may be a factor that influences rates. In order to determine the extent to which size  &is an influencing factor, we have calculated the average monthly rate for each size strata for both the  &ycompetitive and noncompetitive groups, and present the results of these calculations in Attachment D1.  S- &Also shown in Attachment D1, are the standard errors of the estimate which were calculated for each  Sl-mean reported.0|lXj yOd - &#C\  P6QP#эThe following is an explanation of the statistical concepts used in this report. Statistics is a way of estimating  &ithe characteristic of a population (such as the mean or average) by examining a randomly selected sample of the  &=population. For example, we estimate the average equipment charge for the population of 33,000 CUIDs by  &<examining the average equipment charge for our sample. Even though our sample is representative of the entire  &population of CUIDs, the average equipment charge for our sample does not exactly match the average equipment  &charge for the entire population. Rather, the average equipment charge for the population of 33,000 CUIDs will  &fall within a range of values around the estimated average equipment charge calculated from our sample. According  &to statistical theory, the average equipment charge for the population of 33,000 CUIDs is bounded by our sample's  &-reported mean plus or minus 1.96 multiplied by the standard error of the mean for the sample. This will give us"l',`(`('"  &a 95% confidence level, which means that the mean for the entire population of 33,000 CUIDs will fall within this  &range 95% of the time. Using this method, we estimate that the average monthly equipment charge for the  &population of 33,000 CUIDs lies between $2.63 and $2.83 with a 95% confidence level. We arrive at $2.63 by  yO- &subtracting 1.96 times $0.05 from $2.73, and we arrive at $2.83 by adding 1.96 times $0.05 to $2.73. See  {Ox- &;Attachment D2 for the standard error for each estimated mean.  See Kmenta, J., Elements of Econometrics, at 70 {OB-153, for a more complete discussion of statistical theory. ("Kmenta"),0"l ,`(`(88F"Ԍ S-  : ԙ25. ` ` In addition to a comparison of means by group and by size strata, we also estimated  S- &multiple regression equations for each year which allow us to compare the differences in average monthly  &=rates between the competitive and noncompetitive groups controlling for size. The estimated regression  S- &coefficients are shown in Attachment E. The estimated regression coefficients for the size variables for  &all three years are significantly different from zero indicating that size is a factor that systematically  S8- &influences rates. For comparison purposes, the regression results (which hold size constant) show the  &following percentage differences between the competitive and noncompetitive groups: 5.0% for 1995,  &y4.0% for 1996, and 4.7% for 1997. The differences between these percentages and those shown in Table  S-1 (which are based on means) are accounted for by the size variables.  Sp- : o26. ` ` Within the competitive group, there are four subcategories according to the four criteria  &under which a finding of effective competition can be made, as discussed in footnote 3 and paragraph 9  &above. Attachment D5 shows the average monthly rates, average number of channels, and average monthly rate per channel for each of the four subcategories of the competitive group.  S - : P27. ` ` Table 2, below, shows the average monthly rates for programming services and equipment  &for the competitive group. The average monthly rate rose by 8.7% between 1995 and 1996, and by 9.6%  SX- &between 1996 and 1997.X j yO- &,#C\  P6QP#эThe prices reported in this document have not been adjusted for inflation and therefore are in nominal dollars. The average number of channels received by subscribers increased from 38  &in 1995 to 46.5 in 1997. As a result, the average monthly rate per channel rose by 4.5% between 1995  &kand 1996, and declined by 5.7% between 1996 and 1997. Also, the average monthly rate per satellite  S- &channel declined by 7.3% between 1996 and 1997. We note that the increases in average monthly rates  &between 1995 and 1996 and between 1996 and 1997, and the increase in the average number of channels  S- &in 1997, are statistically significant. However, the changes in average prices for the programming services  Sj-and equipment subcategories are not statistically significant.xjd j Sn-ԍ#C\  P6QP#To determine whether a change over time is statistically significant, we apply the "z test" to examine whether the difference between the estimated means for the two time periods is statistically different from zero.  S -See Kmenta at 136137 for a more complete explanation of the "z test.#&J\  P6Q &P#" "B ,`(`(886F"Ԍř m !ddxH Fr  Addx G  m       "" "bTable 2: Competitive Group  kI<    ""  Service Element,;"h7/1/95 p7(A)"@7/1/96 (B)"% Change  A & B"g7/1/97 o8(C)"% Change k B & C <  ";"   kIhAverage Monthly Rate;"j$22.88;"2$24.88;"68.7%*;"i$27.26;"%  9.6%.*< <  ";;"   kIProgramming ServicesX;"rCn/aX;"2$23.32X;"'ԩX;"i$25.29X;" 8.4%< <  ";;"   kIEquipment;"rCn/a;"W$1.56;"'ԩ;"j $1.97;"  7.0%< < X ";;"   kIChannels;"sS38;"|39.6;"[4.2%;"n46.5;"\ 17.4%*< <  ";;"  Average Monthly Rate Per Channel ;"l$0.67 ;"W$0.70 ;"[4.5% ;"k$0.66 ;"u  5.7%<   ";"   kI Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite Channel "rCn/a "W$1.09 "'ԩ "k$1.01 " ԩ7.3%    ""  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D2 for standard errors for the reported averages.    S -  S-` ` hh^  S- : 28. ` ` Table 3, below, reports results for the noncompetitive group. The average monthly rate  &for the noncompetitive group increased by 8.8% between 1995 and 1996, and 8.5% between 1996 and  S\- &1997. These increases for average monthly rates are statistically significant.lX\ yO- &#C\  P6QP#эUsing the method described in footnote 24, the average monthly rate for all noncompetitive CUIDs as of July  &1, 1997, lies between $28.46 and $29.20 with a 95% confidence level. See Attachment D2 for the standard error of each estimated mean.l The package of services  S4- &received by subscribers has not been static over this period. Subscribers received 44 channels, on average,  S - &!in July 1995, and paid $24.43 per month for those channels, or $0.60 per channel. In July 1997,  S- &subscribers received 49.4 channels, an increase of 5.4 channels over July 1995, and paid $28.83 per  S- &month, or $0.63 per channel. Thus, on a per channel basis, the average monthly rate increased by 5.0%  S- &between 1995 and 1997, or, as shown in Table 3, by 1.7% between 1995 and 1996, and by 3.3% between  &1996 and 1997. Also, the average monthly rate per satellite channel increased by 2.1% between 1996 and 1997. " ,`(`(88 "Ԍ r Addx G   addx ' : r   <   ";"  WTable 3: Noncompetitive Group <   ";"  Service Elementx;"tz7/1/95 |(A),"7/1/96 (B),"% Change mA & B,"k7/1/97 s[(C),"% Change k B & C < < ";"  Average Monthly Rateh;"vl$24.43h;"$26.57h;"#8.8%*h;"m$28.83h;" 8.5%* < < , ";;"  Programming Services;"~n/a;"$24.28;".)ԩ;"m$26.31;"  8.4%*< < h ";;"  Equipment;"~n/a;" $2.29;".)ԩ;"n$ 2.52;"C  10.0%*< <  ";;"  Channels;"44;"47;"#6.8%*;"r@49.4;"7  5.1%*< <  ";;"  Average Monthly Rate Per ChannelX ;"x$0.60X ;"$0.61X ;"%1.7%X ;"n $0.63X ;" 3.3%<   ";"  Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite ChannelH "~n/aH "$0.95H ".)ԩH "o$0.97H " 2.1%   X  ""  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D2 for standard errors for the reported averages.  H  SH -  S - : 29. ` ` Charts 1 through 2a, attached, show average monthly rate, average monthly rate per  &channel, and average monthly rate per satellite channel for the competitive and noncompetitive groups for  &the period from 1995 to 1997. While Chart 1 indicates that average monthly rates charged by both the  &competitive and noncompetitive groups increased between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 1997, Chart 2 and  &Chart 2a show that the average monthly rate per channel and average monthly rate per satellite channel for both groups were relatively more stable.  S0-  S- : 30. ` ` This year's Survey also asked respondents to explain changes in rates between July 1,  S- &1995 and July 1, 1996, and between July 1, 1996 and July 1, 1997. We find that both competitive and  &noncompetitive respondents attribute most of their rate increases to inflation, increases in programming  &costs, channel additions, and system upgrades. Between 1996 and 1997, operators in the competitive  Sh- &group attribute an average of 24% of their rate increases to inflation and an average of 33% to higher  &/programming costs. Operators in the noncompetitive group attribute an average of 34% of their rate  &/increases to inflation and an average of 29% to higher programming costs, over the same time period.  S- &Table 4, below, summarizes the results for the competitive and noncompetitive groups, as do Charts 3 through 6, attached.  S-` ` hh^pp&  X  Sx-"x ,`(`(88@ "Ԍ0 m addx ' :  ddx hk m  < H  ; "0RTable 4: Explanation of Changes in Rates < <    ;;  "yCompetitive Groupx;"RNoncompetitive Group <  < <  ;;x  ("`19951996;"19961997;"19951996;"g19961997< < x ;;x  Inflation;"q?38%;"Y24%;" s35%;"x34%< <  ;;x  Programming Costs,;"q?33%,;"Y33%,;" s37%,;"x29%< <  ;;x  Channel Additionsh;"q?10%h;"Y10%h;" s12%h;"x13%< < , ;;x  System Upgrades;"sd6%;"Y16%;""7%;"x11%< < h ;;x  Equipment ;"sd7% ;"Y11% ;""5% ;"z8%< <  ;;x  Other ;"sd6% ;"~6% ;""4% ;"z5%< <   ;;x  TotalB#X ;"# Bn100%B#X ;"# B4100%B#X ;"# BN100%B#X ;"# Bua100%<     ;x  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Programming Costs include copyright fees. This table is based on responses received from operators serving 360 CUIDs (307 noncompetitive and 53 competitive.)  X  SX- 0  S0-` ` hh^pp  S- : 31. ` ` The Survey also requested detailed information about each operator's channel lineup.  &Attachments C1 and C2 show how the competitive and noncompetitive groups changed their channel  S- &lineups during the survey period. Both the competitive and noncompetitive groups increased their average  &channel capacity during this period and, for the most part, used that increased capacity to offer additional  Sj- &jsatellite channels on their CPSTs.hj {O-#C\  P6QP#эSee Attachment C2.h The competitive group offered 38 channels, on average, in 1995, and  &^increased to 46.5 channels in 1997, an increase of 8.5 channels over this two year period. The  &noncompetitive group offered 44 channels in 1995, and increased to 49.4 channels in 1997, an increase  &of 5.4 channels, on average, over the same period. These changes in the number of channels offered are  S-statistically significant. " Z,`(`(88%L"Ԍ S- #xT  #xT ԙ B.` ` Regulated and Unregulated Groups  S- : 32. ` ` As noted above, the Survey included questions intended to identify the respondents regulatory status. Tables 5 and 6, respectively, report results for the regulated and unregulated groups. #xT  m ddx hk  ddx8   m    < X  ";x"  bTable 5: Regulated Group <  8 ";x"  Service Element;"j7/1/95 r[(A)d"7/1/96  (B)d"% Change AA & Bd"X%7/1/97 `|(C)d"~% Change B & C < t ";x"  Average Monthly Rate;"l$24.35;"$26.63;" W9.4%*;"Z$28.80;"8.1%* < < d ";;x"  Programming Services ;"tgn/a ;"$24.40 ;"ԩ ;"Z$26.45 ;" 8.4%*< <  ";;x"  Equipment ;"tgn/a ;" $2.23 ;"ԩ ;"\<$2.36 ;"7 5.8%< <   ";;x"   kI ChannelsT ;"q@45.1T ;"48.8T ;" W8.2%*T ;"_a51.2T ;" 4.9%*< <   ";;x"  Average Monthly Rate Per Channel ;"n$0.57 ;"$0.58 ;" |1.8% ;"\<$0.60 ;"7 3.4%<  T  ";x"  Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite Channel"tgn/a"$0.94"ԩ"\<$0.97"7 3.2%    "x"  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D3 for standard errors for the reported averages.   S-#xT   SX-  :  33. ` ` As shown in Table 5, above, and Table 6, below, the average monthly rates for both the  & #xT  #xT regulated and unregulated groups increased over the past three years. Between 1995 and 1996, the  &javerage monthly rate for the regulated and unregulated groups increased by 9.4% and 9.2%, respectively.  &LBetween 1996 and 1997, the average monthly rate rose by 8.1% for the regulated group and by 8.4% for the unregulated group. P r ddx8    ddxh  {9f r   <  ";x"  XTable 6: Unregulated Group <  h ";x"  Service Element;"n+7/1/95 v(A)"7/1/96 S(B)" % Change  A & B"X%7/1/97 `|(C)"X% Change B & C <  ";x"  Average Monthly Rate;"p$24.21;"$26.44;"9.2%*;"Z$28.67;"Y 8.4%* < <  ";;x"  Programming Services ;"xn/a ;"$24.12 ;"Dԩ ;"Z$26.06 ;"8.0%*< <  ";;x"  EquipmentH;"xn/aH;" $2.30H;"DԩH;"[#$ 2.61H;"13.5%* < <   ";;x"  Channels;"ug43.3;"445.6;"5.3%*;"_a47.8;"4.8%*< < H ";;x"  Average Monthly Rate Per Channel ;"rB$0.61 ;"$0.63 ;"3.3% ;"\<$0.65 ;"3.2% <   ";x"  Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite Channel""xn/a""$0.95""Dԩ""\<$0.98"" 3.2%    "x"  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D3 for standard errors for the reported averages.P  "  S%- : 2!34. ` ` Our data indicate no statistically significant difference in the average monthly rate charged  S`&- &/by regulated and unregulated operators. The regulated group, however, offers their subscribers more  S8'- &kchannels (the difference is statistically significant in 1996 and 1997) and charges less on a per channel"8' ,`(`(88' #"  &basis (the difference is statistically significant in 1995, 1996, and 1997) than the unregulated group. In  S- &zaddition, the regulated group consistently charges less for equipment than the unregulated group. For  &M1996 and 1997, the regulated group charged $2.23 and $2.36, respectively, per month for equipment,  &while the unregulated group charged $2.30 and $2.61. These differences were found to be statistically  S`- &ysignificant. Thus, we can conclude that subscribers that purchase cable services from regulated operators  S8- &typically pay less, on a per channel basis, for programming services and less for equipment than subscribers that purchase cable services from unregulated operators.  S- : "35. ` ` Charts 7 through 8a, attached, show how the average monthly rate, the average monthly  S- &rate per channel, and average monthly rate per satellite channel for the regulated and unregulated groups  Sp- &have changed since 1995. Although Chart 7 shows that the average monthly rate charged by the regulated  &and unregulated groups have increased over time, Charts 8 and 8a show that on a per channel basis the  S -average monthly rate charged by both groups has been relatively more stable over this time period. ` `  S - : 36. ` ` Table 7, below, summarizes the explanation for changes in rates for the regulated and  &unregulated groups. Both the regulated and unregulated groups attribute most of their rate increases to  &inflation, increases in programming costs, channel additions, and system upgrades. For the unregulated  &group, increases in equipment are also significant. For the year ending in July 1997, the regulated group  &Mattributes 41% of their rate increase to inflation and 28% of their rate increase to higher programming  &costs. The unregulated group attributes 29% to inflation and 33% to higher programming costs for the same time period. ` ` hh^pp# 0 m ddxh  {9f  Sddx S ) m  < " ;x "06Table 7: Explanation for Changes in Rates < <    ;;x  |"}Regulated Group;"mUnregulated Group <  <   ;;x  "g19951996D;"19961997D;" 19951996D;"d19961997< <  ;;x  Inflation;"x37%;"S41%;"I33%;"ue29%< < D ;;x  Programming and License Fees;"x33%;"S28%;"I40%;"ue33%< <  ;;x  Channel Additions;"x14%;"S13%;"I10%;"ue13%< <  ;;x  System Upgrades4;"z7%4;"S10%4;" n6%4;"ue11%< <  ;;x  Equipmentp;"z3%p;"x3%p;" n9%p;"ue11%< < 4 ;;x  Other;"z6%;"x5%;" n2%;"w3%< < p ;;x  TotalB#;"# Bub100%B#;"# B.100%B#;"# B$100%B#;"# Br@100%<    ;x   kIpSource: 1997 Price Survey. Programming and License fees includes copyright fees. Also see Charts 9 through 12 for a graphical presentation of these data.   S - 0  S!-` ` hh^pp#"! ,`(`(88""Ԍ S- #xT $ #xT C.` ` Comparison by System Size  S-  : ~ 37. ` ` Table 8, below, shows the average monthly rate charged by each of the three size strata  S- &Mwhich were calculated for the competitive group. S-ԍ#C\  P6QP#See footnote 9 for an explanation of the three size strata.#&J\  P6Q &P#ѱ As shown in the table, smaller systems typically charge less, and their rates have increased less rapidly, than larger systems.  S8-  #xT  m Sddx S ) ddx {9f m       "x"   Table 8: Comparison of Average Monthly Rate by Size Strata rFCompetitive Group    Size Strata<;"n+7/1/95 v(A)"7/1/96 S(B)" % Change  A & B"X%7/1/97 `|(C)"X% Change B & C <  ";x"  Large Systems , ;" aEx p0 #6\  P6Q |P#$24.64 # &J\  P6Q &P#, ;" kIx  $27.04 , ;" kIx  #&J\  P6Q &P#9.7% #&J\  P6Q &P#, ;" kIx Z $28.67 , ;" kIx Y 6.02% < <  ";;x"  MediumSize Systemsh ;" kI p $24.00 h ;" kI  $26.00 h ;" kI  8.3% #C\  P6QP##&J\  P6Q &P#h ;" kI Z $28.93 h ;" kI  11.3% < < ,  Small Systems ;" kI p $21.48  ;" kI  $23.21  ;" kI  #&J\  P6Q &P#8.1% #&J\  P6Q &P# ;" kI Z $24.36  ;" kI  5.0% < h  h  ";fx"   kI,  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Large systems are those with 50,000 or more subscribers, mediumsized systems are those between 10,000 and 49,999 subscribers, and small systems are those with fewer than 10,000 subscribers. Note, this is not the legal definition for small systems. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D1 for standard errors for the reported averages.h   f S - #xT   S-  : ~ #xT $ #xT 38. ` ` Table 9, below, shows the average monthly rate charged by each of the three size strata  &which were calculated for the noncompetitive group. As shown in the table, smaller systems typically  S- &charge less, and their rates have increased less rapidly, than larger systems. However, it also should be  Sl- &/noted that smaller systems typically offer fewer channels than larger systems. Thus, larger systems  &typically charge less on a per channel basis than smaller systems. The average number of channels offered and the average rate per channel for each size stratum are shown in Attachment D4.  S-  r ddx {9f !ddx {9f r h     "x"   Table 9: Comparison of Average Monthly Rate by Size Strata  kIi#Noncompetitive Group    "x"  Size Strata;"n+7/1/95 v(A)"7/1/96 S(B)" % Change  A & B"X%7/1/97 `|(C)"X% Change B and C P  "Yx"  Large Systems ;" yO4-m #C\  P6QP#$25.29 #&J\  P6Q &P#Y" kI4 $27.61 Y" kI4 #&J\  P6Q &P#9.2%* #&J\  P6Q &P#Y" kI4Z $30.19 Y" kI4Y 9.3%* P <  "Y;x"   kIMediumSize Systems8;" kIp $24.60 8;" kI $26.81 8;" kI 9.0% #C\  P6QP#*#&J\  P6Q &P#8;" kIZ $28.94 8;" kI 7.9%* < <  ";;x"  Small Systemst;" kIp $22.23 t;" kI $23.86 t;" kI #&J\  P6Q &P#7.3% *#&J\  P6Q &P#t;" kIZ $25.56 t;" kI 7.1%* < h  8 ";fx"   kI Source: 1997 Price Survey. Large systems are those with 50,000 or more subscribers, mediumsized systems are those between 10,000 and 49,999 subscribers, and small systems are those with fewer than 10,000 subscribers. Note, this is not the legal definition for small systems. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a  kI!statistically significant change over time. See Attachment D1 for standard errors for the reported averages.h  tf S!- "!h,`(`(88e""Ԍ S-řV.Conclusion  S-  : P39.` ` We draw the following conclusions from this Survey. The results indicate that prices rose  &for both the competitive and noncompetitive groups. The noncompetitive group charged higher prices  &than the competitive group for each of the three time periods studied. The percentage differential between competitive and noncompetitive narrowed between 1996 and 1997.  S-  : 240. ` ` On a statistical basis, our analysis indicates that the prices charged by the regulated group  S- &are not significantly different from the prices charged by the unregulated group. Both groups attribute  S- &their rate increases primarily to inflation, higher programming costs, channel additions, and system  &upgrades. Additionally, competitive and unregulated groups also attribute a significant portion of their  SH -rate increases to equipment cost increases.  S -  S - : 41. ` ` Both the competitive and noncompetitive groups offered subscribers more channels, and  &had corresponding reductions in average monthly rates per channel. Regulated operators, on average, offer  S - &more channels than unregulated operators, and subscribers of regulated operators pay significantly less  S - &on a per channel basis than subscribers purchasing services from unregulated operators. Also, regulated operators charge less, on average, for equipment than unregulated operators.  S- : 42. ` ` Finally, we find that both the competitive and noncompetitive groups have mostly used their increased channel capacity to offer additional satellite channels on their CPSTs.  S-  Sh- VI.ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  S- : 43. ` ` It is ORDERED that this Report is issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534(k). ` `  hh^FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh^Magalie Roman Salas ` `  hh^Secretary  ",`(`(88" | !ddx {9f  Addx4jj8 $$$$$| "h   < t" *;x*   o w '/7!#?&(*G-/1O468W;=@_Bt$| m 4<D!#%L(*,4\68 ;d=?Bo$Attachment A: Descriptive Statistics for CUIDs Used in the Statistical Analysis &< <    & $-ԃN1995x;$Lԃ1996x;$#ԃs 1997(<    < <( ("  Respondents;"iSubscribers;"Respondents;"@Subscribers;"set$| m 4<D!#%L(*,4\68 ;d=?Bo"#')+-/024779;?>@BGEOLNPWSUX_Z$oRespondents;"!Subscribers< < x *;;x*  "  q<Competitive  kIX~Group; o"#')+-/024779;?>@BGEOLNPWSUX_Z"z * :B!#*R/8 ;b=?BjDFo Small;$731;$|18,447;$31;$0"z * :B!#*R/8 ;b=?BjDF~x(!$*,F/13:?IfKMPnRTW .19,293;$"29;$"18,137< <  *;;*  ", Medium,;$720,;$|44,273,;$21,;$047,601,;$"32,;$"104,865< <  *;;*  ", Largeh;$712h;$wL598,895h;$13h;$+633,043h;$"22h;$"953,486< < , *;;*  ">, Total;$563;$pL643,165;$65;$$699,937;$"83;$""1,076,488< w h *;w*  " o4Unregulated  kI ~Group\ J Small w$735 w$|24,544 w$35 w$025,778 w$"35 w$"26,279w <  *w;*  "  MediumW ;$791W ;$o1,335,696W ;$90W ;$&q1,353626W ;$"89W ;$""1,303,747< <   *;;*  "  Large ;$775 ;$o2,683,609 ;$75 ;$#L2,737,927 ;$"79 ;$""2,869,625< < W  *;;*  "K  Total0" ;$ 0 kI /5 201 ă0" ;$ 0 kI f 4,044,8490" ;$ 0 kI T 200 ă0" ;$ 0 kI L 4,117,337 ă0" ;$ 0 kI  203 ă0" ;$ 0 kI "" 4,199,651 ă< <   *;;*  " u}Regulated ~Groupx Small ;$715 ;$|31,179 ;$15 ;$031,576 ;$"15 ;$"31,680< <   *;;*  " MediumG;$759G;$wL823,069G;$59G;$+852,078G;$"49G;$"802,962< <   *;;*  " Large;$25147;$o8,694,423;$T146;$#L8,892,609;$135;$""8,606,152< < G *;;*  ", Total0";$ 0 kI /5 221 ă0";$ 0 kI f 9,548,671 ă0";$ 0 kI T 220 ă0";$ 0 kI L 9,776,263 ă0";$ 01990";$ 0 kI "" 9,440,794 ă <      *;*   kIgNoncompetitive Total)"f$  )/5422)"f$  )`13,593,520)"f$  )T420)"f$  )13,893,600)"f$  )402)"f$  )!13,640,445"   ," *,*   kISample Grand Total)",$  )@  485)",$  )`14,236,685)",$  )T485)",$  )14,593,537)",$  )485)",$  )!14,716,933 ,  f  *,*  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Survey responses were included in the analysis if the respondent provided data for the components of rates (e.g, equipment and programming), channel capacity, and subscribers. Note: A CUID associated with a system with fewer than 10,000 subscribers is categorized as small, a CUID associated with a system with 10,000 to 49,999 subscribers is categorized as medium, and a CUID associated with a system with more than 49,999  kIsubscribers is categorized as large.   S-",`(`(88" 3'3'Standard3'3'Current Windows FormSX\ ݌X 3'3'Current Windows FormSX\ 3'3'Current Windows FormSX\ ݌X w Addx4jj8 $$$$$ addxr  w  <  ;  , Attachment B: Average Charge For Other Services < <    ;;  ~x(!$*,F/13:?IfKMPnRTWi +/&*O468W;=@_B.o JaCompetitivex; HGNoncompetitive <  < <  ;;x  ("  1996;"1997;"<1996;"1997<  x ;x  Installation;"J $29.61   (2.34)"N$39.56  (1.72)"$33.47 (0.82)"n$39.59 (0.80)   x  Disconnection;" o $5.72  c (3.05)"s$4.69 g(2.52)"*$0.95 (0.38)"$0.90 (0.36)   x   kIReconnection;"J $19.06  c (1.68) "N$23.45 g(0.82) "$18.76 (0.55) "n$22.70 (0.47)   x   kI Tier Change ;"J $12.63  c (2.28)t "N$10.85 g(2.31)t "*$6.19 (0.52)t "$6.50 (0.51) L   Jx  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis. L  t J" ,`(`(88 m " m addxr   ddx ` m  L  < t  ";x" "KAttachment C1 : Operators That Changed The Number of Active Channels Between 1996 and 1997 "<   " ";x"  th"IeTotal G=Sample$Competitive$Noncompetitive$NRegulated$\Unregulated&  <  & ";x"  No Change@;"P154@;"28@;" m126@;"g51@;" 75&<    & ";x"   kIReduced Channel Capacity Between 1 and 10 Channels0"S100"*10"90"i20" 7&    @& "x"  Increased Channel Capacity  kIlBetween 1 and 5 Channels "P251C# "C36C# "ȏOo_ȏOo_C m215 "d119 " 96&    0& "x"  Increased Channel Capacity Between 6 and 7 Channels "S25 "*2C# "?/?/C 23 "g10 " 13&     & "x"  Increased channel Capacity  kIL Between 8 and 10 Channels "S24 "*9C# "?/?/C 15 "i9 " 6&     & "x"  Increased Channel Capacity Between 11 and 15 Channels"V7" 1/#"/ 6"i4" 2&     & "x"  Increased Channel Capacity Between 16 and 30 Channels"V9"*4"5"i1" 4&    & "x"  Increased Channel Capacity  kIBetween 31 and 50 Channels"V5"*2"3"i3" 0&  l  & "hx"  TotalH#<h") HP485N#<h"/ N83N#<h"/ N m402H#<h") Hd199H#<h") H 203l  h"<,`(`(887" r ddx `  ddxe r "l  < " ";x" Attachment C2 : How Respondents Changed Their Active Channels Between 1996 and 1997"< <   "Competitivex;_eNoncompetitive$<   < <$z(Respondents;TAverage;>Respondents;ZAverage< < x ";;x" Broadcasting Channel CapacityRIncreased;13 ;1. 2 ;n67 ;1.3 < < * Decreased,;13 ,;-2.5 ,;n44 ,;-1.6 < < Public Access Channel CapacityIncreasedh;10 h;1.2 h;n31 h;1.2 < < ,* Decreased;8 ;-1.1 ;n35 ;-1.3 < < hEducational Channel CapacityB Increased ;7  ;1.1  ;n11  ;1.4 < < * ~ Decreased ;1  ;-1.0  ;sO7  ;-1.1 < <   kI Government Channel Capacity IncreasedX ;5 X ;1.2 X ;n11 X ;1.2 < <   ";;Z" *  Decreased ;0  ;n/a ;sO9  ;-1.0 < < X  ";;Z"  kIBasic Satellite Channel Capacity2Increased;23 ;1.2 ;i106 ;2.5 < <  * nDecreased ;14  ;-6.6  ;n47  ;-2.8 < < CPST-1 Channel CapacityIncreasedH;36 H;8.5 H;i209 H;4.3 < <  * Decreased;2 ;-3.0 ;n24 ;-6.3 < < H kI CPST-2 Channel Capacity"Increased;10 ;1.0 ;n20 ;3.1 < < * ^Decreased;1 ;-1.0 ;sO0 ;NA"<    " ";Z" Average Change in Channel Capacity8;4.27* i(0.88) z2.54* x(0.22) "     " "Z" Source: 1997 Price Survey. This table shows the number of respondents that changed channel capacity. As of July,  kI(there are 83 competitive CUIDs and 402 noncompetitive CUIDs. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant increase in average channel capacity. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis.   S-",`(`(88"  r E  m ddxe  ddxFr m    Z "O5Attachment D1: Comparison of Competitive and Noncompetitive Groups By Size Strata GDAverage Monthly Rates    Z  i +/&*O468W;=@_Bo w '/7!#?&(*G-/1O468W;=@_BooSize,;" Competitive ^ Group - "DNoncompetitive Z:Group k " kIx $ Difference  kI, between Means " kIxB % Difference  kI,=between Means     Z   kI@z1997 ĐOto0OO    Z   kITLarge;" kITb  $28.67 { (0.68)"]>$30.19 _W(0.26)"c$1.52"Y5.3%   Z   kID Medium ;"b $28.93 { (0.82) "]>$28.94 _W(0.25) "c$0.01 "W0.03%   Z  Small ;"b $24.36 { (0.93) "]>$25.56 _W(0.64) "c$1.20 "Y4.9%     Z "Oz1996     Z  Large;"b $27.04 { (0.79)"]>$27.61 _W(0.58)"c$0.57"Y2.1%   Z  Medium;"b $26.00 { (0.89)"]>$26.81 _W(0.24)"c$0.81"Y3.1%   Z   kISmall;"b $23.21 { (0.80)"]>$23.86 _W(0.56)">$$0.65"Y2.8%   Z  z1995Oto   Z  Large;"b $24.64 { (0.81)`"]>$25.29 _W(0.57)`"c$0.65`"Y2.6%  p Z   kIMedium;"b $24.00 { (0.81)P"]>$24.60 _W(0.22)P"c$0.60P"Y2.5%  ` Z  Small;"b $21.48 { (0.80)@"]>$22.23 _W(0.60)@"c$0.75@"Y3.5% h  P fZ  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Average rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant change over time. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant difference between competitive and  kInoncompetitive groups at 95% level of confidence.h  @f S- ",`(`(88/" E  h ddxFr  ddHp h h  x @ wZ " kIo w '/7!#?&(*G-/1O468W;=@_Btn <%*4\68 ;d=?Bo$Attachment D 2 : Comparison of Competitive and Noncompetitive Groups x P   w+Z "Year<" Competitive p Group , +"<YNoncompetitive Group k+"$ Difference /between Means  kI+"J'tn <%*4\68 ;d=?B$),T/14:?ItKM$P|RT,W$<% Difference Ebetween Means dP  x x +wZ "*ITAverage Monthly Rate kI*n$ x x   wwZ " 1997"a $27.26 z (0.54)w"]=$28.83  kI_V(0.19))#w"  ) kIPZ$1.55)#w"  )U5.8.%*x  x  @" 1996|"a $24.88 z (0.53)0w"]=$26.57  kI|_V(0.18)0w" kIZ$1.690w"W6.8%*x  x  " 1995"a $22.88 z (0.52) w"]=$24.43  kI_V(0.18) w" kI@Z$1.55 w"W6.8%*x  x 0 wwZ "*7uAverage Number of Channels*n$ x x    wwZ " kI0  1997 " 46.5  (1.8) w"b49.4  kI a{(0.6) w" kI0 2.9 w"Y6.2%x  x   " kI  1996\ " 39.6  (1.7)w"f47  kI\ a{(0.6)w" kI 7.4w"T18.7%*x  x   " 1995" 38  (1.6)w"f44  kIa{(0.6)w" kI 6w"T15.8%*x  x  wwZ "*> Average Monthly Charge Per Channel x x   wwZ " 1997" $0.66 z (0.03)xw"_b$0.63  kI_V(0.01)xw" kIAԩ$0.03xw"Xԩ4.6%x  x  " 1996<" $0.70 z (0.04)w"_b$0.61  kI<_V(0.01)w" kIAԩ$0.09w"Sԩ12.9%*x  x  x" 1995" $0.67 z (0.04)hw"_b$0.60 _V(0.01)hw"Aԩ$0.07hw"Sԩ10.4%*x  x  wwZ "*A Average Monthly Charge Per Satellite Channel**x x  h wwZ " 1997" $1.09 z (0.08)Xw"_b$0.97 Z (0.0004)Xw"Aԩ$0.12Xw"Uԩ11.0%x  x   wwZ " 1996" $1.01 z (0.06)w"_b$0.95 \1(.0008)w"Aԩ$0.06w"Xԩ5.9%x  x X wwZ "KXProgramming Servicesx x   wwZ " 1997 "a $25.29 z (0.45)w"]=$26.31 _V(0.24)w"Z$1.02w"W4.0%*x  x  H" 1996"a $23.32 z (0.47)8w"]=$24.28 _V(0.22)8w"Z$0.968w"Y4.1%x  x  wwZ "PEquipment Chargesx x  8 wwZ " 1997t " $1.97 z (0.16)(!w"_b$2.52 _V(0.05)(!w"Z$0.55(!w"T27.9%*x  x  " 1996!" $1.56 z (0.19)"w"_b$2.29 _V(0.05)"w"Z$0.73"w"W4.7%*x  X  (! wVZ  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Noncompetitive CUIDs can be regulated or unregulated. The average monthly rate is for BST, CPST, a remote, and a converter. Programming services and equipment charges were not requested for 1995. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant difference between the competitive and noncompetitive groups at 95% level of confidence. X  "V S&- "&,`(`(88&e""   E  h ddHp   Hp h X   " Z " kI Attachment D 3: Comparison of Regulated and Unregulated Groups \  :Z  $Yeari"- Regulated Group , "EUnregulated Group k"$ Difference between DMeans  kI:"9$),T/14:?ItKM$P|RT,Wrl$(:+-06;EZGI LbNPS<"% Difference between WMeans\  \ :Z  JfAverage Monthly Rate<i     Z "1997 "a $28.80 z (0.26)"]=$28.67 _V(0.25)"Aԩ$0.13"Xԩ0.5%    < Z "1996"a $26.63 z (0.26)D "]=$26.44  kI_V(0.23)D " kIAԩ$0.19D "Uԩ0.71%     Z "1995 "a $24.35 z (0.25) "]=$24.21  kI _V(0.22) " kI` Aԩ$0.14 "Uԩ0.57%   D  Z  8Average Number of Channels<i      Z "1997 " 51.2 z (0.93) "b47.8  kI _V(0.92) " kIh ԩ3.4 "Uԩ6.6%*    L  Z "1996" 48.8 z (0.88)T"b45.6  kI_V(0.82)T" kI ԩ3.2T"Uԩ6.6%*      Z "1995$" 45.1 z (0.89)"b43.3  kI$_V(0.75)" kIpԩ1.8"Xԩ4.0%   T Z  P Average Monthly Charge Per Channel     Z "1997," $0.60 z (0.01)"_b$0.65  kI,_V(0.01)" kIxZ$0.05"W8.3%*    \ Z "1996" $0.58 z (0.01)d"_b$0.63  kI_V(0.01)d" kIZ$0.05d"W8.6%*     Z "19954" $0.57 z (0.01)"_b$0.61 _V(0.01)"Z$0.04"T7.01%*   d Z " S Average Monthly Charge Per Satellite Channel   Z "1997<" $0.97 z (0.03)"_b$0.98 \1(0.001)"b$0.01"W1.03%  l Z "1996" $0.94 z (0.04)t"_b$0.95 \1(0.001)t"b$0.01t"W1.06%   Z  LjProgramming Services   t Z "1997"a $26.45 z (0.28)|"]=$26.06 _V(0.28)|"Aԩ$0.39|"Xԩ1.5%     Z "1996L"a $24.40 z (0.26) "]=$24.12 _V(0.32) "Aԩ$0.28 "Uԩ1.14%   | Z "QEquipment Charges     Z "1997T"" $2.36 z (0.10)#"_b$2.61 _V(0.07)#"Z$0.25#"R10.59%*    ! Z "1996#" $2.23 z (0.09)$"_b$2.30 _V(0.07)$"Z$0.07$"W3.13%    # Z  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Noncompetitive operators can be regulated or unregulated. The average monthly rate is for BST, CPST, a remote, and a converter. Programming services and equipment charges were not requested for 1995. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis. An asterisk signifies a statistically significant difference between regulated and unregulated groups at 95% level of confidence. // "x',`(`(88'$"  $E  c  Hp  !ddm c  z $ wZ "X Attachment D 4 : Comparison by Size Strata z   wZ   kIrl$(:+-06;EZGI LbNPStn<%*4\68 ;d=?B"$ Year @" kI  Large Systems Q " kI5S MediumSize Systems k" kI& Small Systems  z z xZ   V Average Monthly RateC,n$ z   xZ  11997n$0" $30.19  (0.26)0"];$28.94 _T(0.25))#0"  )#$25.56 a(.64) z  xZ "11996" $27.61  (0.58)x"];$26.81 ay(.24)x"#$23.86 a(.56)z R 0 xYZ "11995p" $25.29  (0.57)$ x"];$24.60 ay(.22) k Y"#$22.23 a(.60)R z  YxZ  w Average Number of ChannelsC,n$ z z   xxZ "11997< " 55.2  (0.84) x"b49.0 ay(.97) x"m36.6 <(1.88)z z v  xxZ "11996 " 52.2  (1.8)jx"b47.7 ay(.91)jx"m33.6 <(1.69)z z   xZ "119950w" 49.1  (1.6)x"b44.2 k"m32.0z z j wZ  @ Average Monthly Charge Per Channel z z  wxZ "11997$" $0.57  (0.01)x"_`$0.62 ay(.01)x"H$0.78 a(.03)z z ^ xxZ "11996" $0.55  (0.01)Rx"_`$0.59 ay(.01)Rx"H$0.79 a(.04)z z  xxZ "11995w" $0.54  (0.01)x"_`$0.58 _T(0.01)1 x"H$0.78 <(0.04)z z R xwZ " Average Monthly Rate Per Satellite Channelz z  wxZ "11997 " $0.85  (0.01)x"_`$1.03 _T(0.07)x"H$1.17 <(0.07)z z F xxZ "11996" $0.84  (0.01):x"_`$0.94 _T(0.04):x"H$1.22 <(0.07)z z  xwZ   Z Programming Servicesz z : wxZ "11997z" $27.42  (0.24).x"];$26.17 ay(.22).x"#$24.03 a(.56)z z  xxZ "11996" $25.07  (0.71)x"];$24.32 ay(.22)x"#$22.44 a(.47)z z . xwZ " Equipment Chargesz z  wxZ "11997 w" $2.77  (0.08)!x"_`$2.77 ay(.08)  !x"H$1.53 a(.20)z z "  xxZ "11996b"" $2.53  (0.19)#x"_`$2.46 ay(.10)#x"H$1.42 a(.20)z  ! xZ  Source: 1997 Price Survey. Noncompetitive CUIDs by size strata. See footnote 9 for description of size strata. The average monthly rate is for BST, CPST, a remote, and a converter. Programming services and equipment charges were not requested for 1995. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis.  # S&- "&,`(`(88&+#"ԌE  rr  E #6\  P6Q |P# O !ddm Addx% O   # Z   aEx Attachment D5: Average Monthly Rate, Number of Channels, and Monthly Rate per Channel   by Category of Effective Competition    d @ Addx% a % @  x  Z   aE%  Average Monthly rate ĐZ<ex  T a % ddx\g T x    Z   aE7 Year Đn$0  Low  Penetration0 ' Other MVPDEC# 0 Municipalsz0 tn<%*4\68 ;d=?Bsm$(;+-06;E[GI LcNPS$# LEC   \ Z "=1997n$"J $27.90  (.67)"7$25.62 :(1.98)"$24.25 -(2.59)"T$26.41  (.53)  0 Z "=19962;"J $25.40  (.55)"7$22.26 :(1.84)"$22.39 -(2.66)"n/a    Z "=1995 J"J $23.41  (.56) "7$20.39 :(1.62) "$20.40 -(1.99) "n/a   T ddx\g ddx % T    Z   aED   Average Number of Channels ĐZBn$  T ddx % ddx g T       Z "=1997 ;" 44.6 a (2.40)t"<47.3 9(4.29)t"51 -(7.11)t" 53.5  k(2.75)    Z "=1996;" 38.6 a (1.87)H"=41.7 :(3.91)H"Y48.5 -(6.51)H"n/a   t Z "=1995J" 37 a (1.84),"<40.3 9(3.39),"Y46.8 -(5.48),"n/a  H T ddx g ddx,% T   H Z   aE/  Average Monthly Rate Per Channel ĐZBn$ , T ddx,% ddxg T     , Z "=1997>;"l $0.72  (.04)"9$0.56 <(.05)"'$.0.48 O(.04)" v$0.51  (.03)   Z "=1996;"l $0.74  (.04)"9$0.55 <(.06)"8$0.47 O(.05)"n/a    Z "=1995J"l $0.71  (.04)"9$0.52 <(.06)"8$0.44 O(.05)"n/a   T ddxg !ddx% T    Z   aE$  Number of CUIDs in Sample ĐZBn$  T !ddx% Addxg T    .  ;Z "=1997;" 58;"B"9;"4;"12. .  ;;Z "=1996;" 54;"B"7;"4;"0. >   ;JZ "=1995J" 52J"B"7J"4J"0>  J T Addxg addx% T > 0  *Z  Source: 1997 Price Survey. The Average Monthly Rate is for BST, CPST, a remote and a converter. Standard error of the estimate is reported in parenthesis. See footnote 3 for a definition of the four categories of effective competition. Note: the sample size for the Other MVPD, Municipals and LEC subcategories may be too small to draw statistically valid conclusions. 0 * SJ"-# &J\  P6Q &P#"J",`(`(88"" J addx%   $ J 0    Z " aE sm$(;+-06;E[GI LcNPStn <%*4\68 ;d=?B#$#C\  P6QP#Attachment E : Regression Results  h  wZ   aE= Year Đe4w" aE/J Variable EB4w" aEtn <%*4\68 ;d=?B Pdp h$&)(,O2(7@B8EGI@LN$ Coefficient h   wZ  C1995e" aEP Competitive Dummy EB"ԩ0.05 S(0.192)  4 " Reciprocal of Average Number of . Subscribersh"ԩ0.21 S(0.548)   "+ Reciprocal of Average Total Channels"ԩ5.86 t(0.70)   | "1@Intercept | "3.34 t(0.02)   H "@ Adjusted R SquareH ".18  d   " aEL ) Competitive Impact "ԩ0.05  0  Z   aE8C1996Đe" Competitive Dummy EB"ԩ0.04 (.02)    Z  " Reciprocal of Average Number of . Subscribers"iԩ0.250 (.14)    aEV"+ Reciprocal of Average Total ChannelsV"ԩ6.63 t(0.64)  r ""1@Intercept ""3.43 t(0.02)  > "@ Adjusted R Square".22 (0.6)     aE" aE) Competitive Impact"ԩ0.04    C1997eL" Competitive Dummy EBL"ԩ0.05 t(0.02)   R" Reciprocal of Average Number of . Subscribers"ԩ0.25 (.13)  n "+ Reciprocal of Average Total Channels"ԩ8.12 t(0.65)  :" yO"-e " aE"0*#6\  P6Q |P#Intercept # C\  P6QP#" aE"#6\  P6Q |P#3.55  aEt(.015) # C\  P6QP#    " aE@  #6\  P6Q |P#Adjusted R Square " aE# 6\  P6Q |P#.29# 6\  P6Q |P#   `"" aE!) Competitive Impact # C\  P6QP#`"" aE! #6\  P6Q |P#ѩ.047# C\  P6QP# j ! uZ   aE##6\  P6Q |P#Source: 1997 Price Survey. Dependent variable is log of average monthly rate per subscriber for BST and CPST, a remote and a converter. Numbers in parenthesis are standard errors. Total number of observations: 485. The competitive impact is calculated by taking the antilog of the  aEx%competitive coefficient minus one. j j#u aE&  aEz'E  rr