The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAn Assessment of the Community Cable Needs for the Ithaca Area Cable Consortium INV •- RICE, WILLIAMS ASSOCIATES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY NEEDS .. OF CABLE SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM, NEW YORK January 8, 1999 Submitted by: Rice, Williams Associates 1�1 601 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW 209 Elden Street Suite 900 Suite 200 Washington,DC 20004 Herndon,VA 20170 Phone:(202)737-2400 Phone:(703)467-9833 E-mail:rwatelcom@erols.com Fax:(703)467-9849 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 SECTION 2 - THE SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Table 2-1 - Summary of Issues Addressed by the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 .. Profile of Subscribers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 Length of Cable Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 The Value Placed on Cable Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 The Value of Cable Service in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 Consumer Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 Cable Service Picture Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 �- Table 2-2 - Cable Picture Quality Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 Table 2-3 - Time Period Between Request for Installation and Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 Table 2-4 - Satisfaction with Cable Installation Service . . . . . . . . . . II-6 Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 `. Cable Outages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8 Billing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10 Subscriber Ability to Reach the Cable Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11 Customer Service Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12 Interest in New Cable Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13 .. Table 2-5 - Subscribers Interested in Future Cable Consumer Services/ Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13 Computer Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14 Table 2-6 - Percent of Respondents Interested in Possible Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16 Public, Educational and Government Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17 Table 2-7 - Percent of Respondents who Responded to the Importance of Part of the Basic Service Charge Being Used to Support Local Public, Educational and Governmental Uses of the Cable System . . . . . . . . . II-17 Viewership of Municipal Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17 i 1 SECTION 3 - SURVEY RESULTS FOR NON-CABLE SUBSCRIBERS . . . . . . III-1 Non-Cable Subscribers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 Former Cable Subscribers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2 Computer Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4 Interest in New Cable Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4 Table 3-1 - Non-cable Households Interested in Future Cable Consumer Services/Products . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4 SECTION 4 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 .. APPENDICES Appendix A - Frequency Distribution for Time Warner Cable Subscribers . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B - Frequency Distribution for Unserved Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C - Subscriber Responses as to Why Cable is Not a Good Value . . . . . . . . C-1 - ii SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION Overview As part of the cable television franchise renewal process for the franchise area for the Ithaca Area Cable Consortium, New York (the "Consortium"), the Ithaca Area Cable Consortium retained Rice, Williams Associates to conduct a survey project in December 1998, that addressed the attitudes of cable television subscribers toward current and future cable television service in the Consortium area and to survey households in the areas that have not subscribed to cable service or who had dropped cable service in the area. The purpose of the project was to determine the level of satisfaction present in cable television households with aspects of the service currently provided by Time Warner Cable ("Time Warner"). The survey sought to generate information for the cable television renewal process about the franchisee's customer service record, interest in future cable services, resident interest in competition for cable and telecommunications services and viewership of access channels, among other issues. This chapter presents the results of the survey work, carried out by Rice, Williams Associates, in four sections: ■ The remainder of Section 1 outlines the scope and methodology of this consumer study. ■ Section 2 profiles characteristics of the respondents and contains the results of the survey on consumer satisfaction with cable television service in the Consortium area and other survey results. ■ Section 3 Summarizes the results of a survey conducted by RWA among non- subscribers and former subscribers of Time Warner Cable. ■ Section 4 contains a summary of findings. I-1 ■ Appendix A contains frequency distribution for Time Warner Cable subscribers. •- ■ Appendix B contains frequency distribution for unserved areas. ■ Appendix C contains subscriber responses as to why cable is not a good value. Research Methodology The survey questionnaire, designed by Rice, Williams Associates, determined ,. consumer satisfaction with a number of cable services including repair, picture quality, and service value. In addition, all respondents were queried as to the importance of public, educational and governmental use of the cable communications system and the desire of Time Warner to use DBS in place of cable television service in sparsely populated areas. •- The survey design was cross-sectional. This design utilizes a random sample of respondents to describe a larger population. It is the same type of design used by pollsters to measure public opinion. In this particular case, the sample was random so that respondents were distributed in the same way as the population as a whole. In other words, survey respondents approximate the general cable subscriber population within the Consortium area. This was accomplished by using telephone exchanges to area boundaries and then screening respondents as to whether or not they lived within the Consortium area. Interviews were terminated if the respondent household was not located in the Consortium area. Three hundred eighty (380) surveys were completed with subscriber households. The response rate of those households qualified to be included in the survey (e.g., phones working, non-businesses, residents of the Consortium area, adult present, actual phone contact) was approximately 78 percent. I-2 The subscriber sample of 380 gives statistically valid results at the 95 percent confidence interval and a not to exceed five percent two-tailed error level. A random sample of 50 non cable subscriber and former households was also completed. The sample of 50 households given the total households unserved by cable gives statistically valid results at the 90 percent confidence interval and a not to exceed ten percent (10%) two-tailed error level. The error level is based on the standard error of the estimated percentage for the sample which is the difference between the survey results obtained with the sample, and the result that would be obtained by a complete census of the population. This means that for any question in which 50 percent of the respondents answered "yes," the true population value lies in the interval between 45 and 55 percent and that 95 percent of all samples would yield results within this interval. The plus or minus error level figure is less for both larger or smaller figures such as 80-20, 70-30, etc. However, as the sample size for certain sub-population categories decreases (e.g. sex), the error level increases. .. I-3 SECTION 2 - THE SURVEY RESULTS Responses to questions in the survey yielded insights into three topics pertaining to cable subscribers: ■ A profile of Time Warner subscribers. ■ Information on several consumer related issues. ■ The value placed on cable television service in general. This section will present the results of the survey in these three areas of investigation. Table 2-1 summarizes the topics addressed in each of these areas, which will be described in detail below. TABLE 2-1 - SUMMARY OF ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE SURVEY Survey Goals Specific Subjects Addressed Profile of Cable Subscribers ■ Length of cable television service (Section 2.1) Value Placed on Cable Service ■ Perceived value of cable (Section 2.2) television Consumer Issues ■ Cable reception (Section 2.3) ■ Repair work ■ Installation ■ Outages ■ Billing ■ Ability to reach the company ■ Interaction with company employees �- ■ Public, educational and governmental access ■ New services ■ Non-subscribers II-1 Profile of Subscribers In order to determine an accurate profile of cable subscribers in the Consortium area, survey respondents were asked questions to determine the length of time that they had been subscribing to cable service. Following is a profile of the survey respondents. Of the subscriber respondents selected, approximately 50 percent were male and 50 percent female. Length of Cable Service Cable subscribers were asked to indicate how long they had been continuous �. subscribers to cable television in the Consortium area. The results appear below. ■ Twenty-seven percent had cable for two years or less ■ Sixteen percent from three to six years ■ Fifty-six percent over six years ■ Two percent were unsure. The Value Placed on Cable Service To gain an understanding of the way that cable television subscribers in the Consortium area perceive the quality of the service delivered, questions were asked as to: -- ■ The perceived value of cable service in general ■ Problems with picture quality ■ Installation ■ Repairs ■ Cable outages II-2 ■ Billing problems ■ Subscriber ability to reach the cable company. The Value of Cable Service in General All three hundred eighty subscribers, were asked, "Do you feel that you are getting a good value from the monthly cable service you subscribe to?" The responses in general were: ■ Fifty-two percent felt they received a good value ■ Thirty-nine percent did not feel they received a good value ■ Nine percent were unsure. The interviewers probed further to find out why 39 percent of the subscribers felt that they were not receiving a good value from their cable service. Verbatim responses by category are in Appendix C. Of the subscribers who did not believe they receive a good value, the majority faulted high rates and the remainder desired more channels, or different channels, less outages, or a combination of reasons. That four of every ten current cable subscribers do not feel they receive a good value from the monthly cable service subscribed to, should be of concern to the franchising authorities and the cable company. However, it is equally true that approximately five of ten subscribers believe they are receiving a good value from the monthly cable service. II-3 r.. Consumer Issues Cable Service Picture Quality All subscribers were asked, "Do you receive any channels on the cable that have problems with picture quality?" Of the subscribers participating in this survey: ■ Twenty-one percent (78 subscribers) reported problems with one or more cable channels. The seventy-eight subscribers reporting picture quality problems were asked which channels on the cable system they experience reception problems with. The majority of those reporting problems cited Channel 8, Fox-WSYT. The reported results appear in Table 2-2 below. TABLE 2-2 -CABLE PICTURE QUALITY PROBLEMS NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS CABLE CHANNEL SERVICE REPORTING PROBLEM ON A PARTICULAR CHANNEL 8 Fox-WSYT 14 9 ABC-WIXT 8 5 UPN-WNYS 6 — 7 NewsCenter 7/Marketplace 4 17 TBS 4 39 ESPN 4 64 Preview Guide 4 3 NBC-WSTM 3 12 CBS-WBNG 3 14 HBO 2 II-4 — 19 ABC-WENY 2 63 Sci-Fi 2 Ten respondents reported being unsure which channels had cable picture quality problems, four respondents had problems with the upper channels, and one respondent each reported problems on Channels 6, 10, 13, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 32, 36,40,45, 50, 58, and 60. The survey results indicate that most complaints are focused on Channel 8. The technical analysis will inquire as to any problems with Channels 8, 9, and 5. Installation Respondents who reported having been continuous cable subscribers for two years or less were asked a series of questions concerning installation of cable service. .. These one hundred and two subscribers were asked how long the time period was between the request for installation of cable service and having cable service installed. Results appear in Table 2-3. TABLE 2-3-TIME PERIOD BETWEEN REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION AND INSTALLATION Less than two business days 20% Two business days 8% Three business days 15% Four business days 10% More than four business days 28% Unsure 20% II-5 Far too many subscribers had to wait more than forty-eight hours for the installation of cable services during the past two years. This customer service issue should be addressed during the renewal proceeding. These same 102 respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the cable installation service. Results appear in Table 2-4. -]TABLE 24-SATISFACTION WITH CABLE INSTALLATION SERVICE Very Satisfied 49% Somewhat Satisfied 33% Somewhat Unsatisfied 7% Very Unsatisfied 3% Unsure 8% This may be considered an adequate, but not outstanding level of satisfaction with the actual installation of cable service . Repairs Subscribers were asked if, apart from installation, it had been necessary for a cable company employee to come to their home to perform repairs during the past year. Seventy-one of the subscribers (19 percent) had a repair done during the past year. Of this group of seventy-one subscribers: ■ Fifty-five percent had requested one repair ■ Twenty-one percent had two repair visits ■ Thirteen percent had three repair visits II-6 ■ Nine percent had four or more repair visits. This same group of seventy-one subscribers was asked how rapidly the repair work was scheduled, the last time they requested repair, by the cable company. Forty- one percent reported that, in their experience, repair work was scheduled by the cable company within 24-hours or less after the request. ■ Forty-one percent (41%) reported that repair service was scheduled within 24-hours or less ■ Twenty-seven percent (27%) reported that repair service was scheduled for greater than 24-hours but less than 48-hours ■ Seventeen percent (17%) reported that repair service was scheduled for more than 48-hours ■ Sixteen percent could not remember. The percentage of subscribers receiving repair service within 24-to 48-hours should be increased. This is another customer service issue which should be addressed during the renewal process. Of the twelve respondents above, reporting more than 48-hours for a repair .. appointment, seven had requested the delay, and five had not. The performance of the cable company in keeping to the promised repair schedule was adequate: ■ Eighty percent reported that the repair occurred as scheduled ■ Nine percent reported that it did not occur as scheduled ■ Eleven percent did not remember. II-7 The seventy-one subscribers in the survey sample that had requested cable repair were asked to evaluate staff. When asked to rate the courtesy of these employees: ■ Fifty-two percent gave these employees an above average rating ■ Thirty-seven percent rated these employees average ■ One respondent rated them poor ■ Zero percent had no contact with these employees. This should be considered a good level of satisfaction with repair staff. Cable Outages All respondents were asked if apart from general electric/power outages (blackouts, no power) they had experienced any cable only outages between 7:00 a.m. and midnight, during the past sixty days. Twenty percent (74 subscribers) of the respondents reported they had experienced a cable outage during the past year. These seventy-four respondents were asked how many cable outages they had experienced over the past year. Results are as follows. r II-8 NUMBER OF OUTAGES PERCENT REPORTING 1 38% 2 27% 3 12% 4 4% 5 1% 6 or more 12% Often in the rain* 10,11-1 Unsure 3% * This response was not read to respondents, it was a volunteered and unprompted response by one respondent. These seventy-four respondents were also asked how long the most recent outage had lasted. Results appear below: PERCENT LENGTH OF LAST OUTAGE REPORTING Less than 15 minutes 10% Greater than 15 minutes but less than 30 minutes 5% Greater than 30 minutes but less than one hour 11% More than one hour but less than two hours 10% .. More than two hours but less than four hours 26% Greater than four hours but less than eight hours 10% Greater than eight hours 20% Unsure 10% II-9 The perceived frequency of such outages should be of concern to the Consortium and the cable company. The technical on-site inspection will examine the outage records with cable company personnel. Billing In total, three percent (3%) of subscribers interviewed (10 households) reported trouble with their cable service billing. Each of these individuals was probed further to yield more detail on the kinds of billing problems that they had experienced. Respondents reported the following billing problems. NUMBER OF BILLING PROBLEM RESPONDENTS Overcharged. 5 Billed for services not purchased. 0 Missed receiving a bill. 0 Charged a late charge even though I paid on time. 0 Additional charges. 1 Bill was confusing. 1 Other. 2 Unsure. 1 The two respondents who reported some "other" billing problem reported the following. ■ "We received someone else's bill." ■ " The bill did not reflect a rebate we should have received." II-10 This should be considered a good adequate record of billing since approximately 5-7 percent of subscribers in other systems surveyed by RWA report a billing problem. Subscriber Ability to Reach the Cable Company The survey tried to gain greater insight into the level of contact and satisfaction that cable subscribers had in contacting the cable system office. Of the subscribers interviewed, 41 percent (156 households) said that they had tried to contact the cable company by telephone during the past six months for any of several reasons -- to get general information, to schedule a repair or installation, to resolve billing problems, or to review service charges. Interviewers asked this group which statement best described what happened the last time they called the cable company. Results follow: DESCRIPTION OF TELEPHONE CALL PERCENT REPORTING The call was answered and I was helped. 39% I received a busy signal and never got through. 1 I received a busy signal and eventually of through. 2% I was put on hold a short time and then helped. 20% I was put on hold a long time and then helped. 7% I was put on hold a long time and hung up. 2% Automatic telephone sstem responded and I was helped. 14% Automatic telephone sstem responded and I was not helped. 6% I was_put on hold a long time and was disconnected. I% II-11 .... DESCRIPTION OF TELEPHONE CALL PERCENT REPORTING No one answered. 0% Other (*see below for respondents description). 3% Five respondents who stated"Other,"had the following description the last time they called the cable company: • "My wife called, I don't know." • "The response was very good." • "It took a long time to resolve the problem." • "I called to complain, but they did not want to listen." • "I was lost being transferred." While these figures show adequate telephone response, the frequency of being on hold a long time and the lack of help after calling the ARU for the 6 percent of subscribers attempting to reach the cable company can be addressed in the renewal proceedings. Customer Service Representatives The courtesy of the cable company's customer service staff was rated by the one hundred seventy-five survey participants (46 percent) who reported having had contact with the cable company customer service representatives. When asked to rate the courtesy of these employees, the following was reported: ■ Thirty-seven percent rated these employees above average ■ Fifty-six percent rated them average, and ■ Five percent (8 respondents) rated them below average or poor. This may be considered a good level of satisfaction with Customer Service Representatives. Of the eight respondents rating CSRs below average or poor, four had multiple repair calls. II-12 Interest in New Cable Services Subscribers were asked their interest in and familiarity with several possible future cable consumer services/products. These products or services were: ■ Programmable remote control ■ Additional channels offered on an a la carte basis ■ Split screen capability •. ■ Emergency alert service. Results appear in Table 2-5. TABLE 2-5-'SUBSCRIBERS INTERESTED IN FUTURE CABLE CONSUMER SERVICES/PRODUCTS SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBERS ` EXPRESSING SUBSCRIBERS EXPRESSING EXPRESSING POSSIBLE FUTURE "VERY EXPRESSING "SOME "No INTEREST" SERVICE INTERESTED" "INTERESTED' INTEREST" Additional channels offered 18% 25% 19% 33% on an A la carte basis Programmable 13% 20% 21% 36% remote control Split screen 11% 18% 16% 53% capability Emergency alert 8% 12% 13% 60% service II-13 Computer Services All respondents were asked if they telecommuted to work or otherwise worked from home. Twenty percent (75 respondents) reported they did. This appears to be a high percentage of such households. All respondents were asked if they owned a personal computer including Apple or Macintosh. Sixty-three percent (240 respondents) said they did. This is higher than the national average. These two hundred forty respondents were asked if the computer •- currently had a modem. Eighty-one percent or one hundred ninety-five respondents reported they did have a modem. Seventy respondents who reported telecommuting or otherwise working from home were in this group. Of these one-hundred ninety-five respondents with a modem, one hundred seventy-four or 89 percent reported being currently connected to the Internet/Web. This 46 percent of total respondents connected to the Web is significantly higher than the national rate, which has continued to grow rapidly. These one hundred seventy-four respondents were asked how likely they would be to switch to the current cable operator for Internet or Web access at a greater speed at a competitive price. Almost twenty percent (20%) reported they would be "very likely to switch," 17 percent said they would "likely switch," and 21 percent said they would be "somewhat likely to switch." Thirty-three percent (33 respondents) reported they would be unlikely to switch. Cross tabulation of responses showed that nineteen of those thirty-three respondents had reported either "picture reception problems," "outages," or believed "current cable service was not a good value." II-14 There is clearly a market for high speed access to the Internet or Web, in which 58 percent of current Time Warner subscribers who access the Web are at least somewhat likely to switch to a Web access service provided by Time Warner. •.. Respondents who reported they were not connected to the Internet were asked how interested they would be in accessing the Internet and/or the World Wide Web through the local cable system. Of these respondents (206 subscribers), e.g. no computer or no modem, 6 percent were "very interested," 6 percent were "interested," 18 percent were "somewhat interested," while 56 percent reported "no interest" and the remainder were "unsure." Respondents were asked how likely they would be to use free Internet service .. for e-mail, etc. at local community centers. Of the two hundred and six respondents not currently connected to the Internet, 19 percent reported they would be "very likely to use such a facility," while 13 percent said they were "likely," and 65 percent reported they would be "unlikely" to use such a service. At least one-third of those respondents not currently connected to the Internet would be at least likely to use free Internet service at local community centers. Somewhat surprisingly, 13 percent and 19 percent respectively, of those currently connected to the Internet report being "very likely" and "likely" to use a free Internet service at local community centers. II-15 Competition The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed to promote competition in telephone and cable television markets. All three hundred eighty respondents were asked to indicate their interest in possible competition. Table 2-6 indicates interest by all respondents. The local possible competition offered was: ■ Competition to Time Warner Cable from another cable company. ■ Competition to the current local telephone company by Time Warner Cable. ■ Competition to Time Warner Cable from the local telephone company. TABLE 2-6-PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS INTERESTED IN POSSIBLE COMPETITION VERY SOME NOT TYPE OF COMPETITION IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANCE IMPORTANT UNSURE Competition to Time Warner Cable from 24% 27% 21% 23% 3% another cable company Competition to the current local telephone company by Time 12% 18% 26% 36% 8% Warner Cable Competition to Time Warner Cable from the local telephone 14% 21% 23% 33% 8% company II-16 A significant majority of the respondents believe that competition in the telecommunications marketplace is of importance to them; in particular, competition for cable television services. Public, Educational and Government Access In addition, subscribers were queried concerning financial support for public, educational and government access programming and viewership of access channels. All subscribers were asked if it was important that part of the monthly basic service charge be used to support public, educational, and government access. Table 2-7 shows the responses. As Table 2-7 shows, a full two-thirds of the subscribers polled believe it is at least somewhat important that a portion of the monthly basic service charge be used to support public, educational, and government access. TABLE 2-7-PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS wH0 RESPONDED TO THE IMPORTANCE OF PART OF THE BASIC SERVICE CHARGE BEING USED TO SUPPORT LOCAL PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL USES OF THE CABLE SYSTEM VERY SOME NOT r. IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANCE IMPORTANT UNSURE 22% 23% 22% 31% 2% Viewership of Municipal Programming All respondents were asked a series of questions concerning whether they had watched local public, educational, and government programming on the access II-17 channels in the past six months. Twenty-nine percent reported they had watched local government access channel 53 in the past six months. These one hundred and nine respondents were queried on the frequency of their viewing Channel 53. Four percent said they viewed the channel daily, 18 percent weekly, 11 percent monthly, and 65 percent view the channel occasionally. All respondents were asked of they had viewed a public access channel 13, 2, or 57 during the past six months. One-half of the respondents reported having watched one of these channels in the past six months. Of these subscribers, 13 percent reported viewing public access programming daily, 23 percent weekly, 5 percent monthly, and 58 percent viewed the public access channel occasionally. The same questions were asked concerning educational access channel 54. One-third of the respondents reported watching the channel during the past six months and of these subscribers, 5 percent reported daily viewing, 24 percent viewed the channel weekly, 14 percent and 54 percent respectively, viewed the educational access channel monthly and occasionally. Clearly, public, educational and government access channels are significantly viewed by substantial numbers of Ithaca area subscribers. II-18 SECTION 3 SURVEY RESULTS FOR NON-CABLE SUBSCRIBERS SECTION 3 - SURVEY RESULTS FOR NON-CABLE SUBSCRIBERS Non-Cable Subscribers As previously stated in the methodology section, a sample of fifty households who do not currently receive cable television services, gives statistically valid results at the 90 percent confidence interval and a not to exceed 10 percent error level. Of the fifty households surveyed, 12 percent (6 households) were both residences and businesses. All households reported that they currently did not receive cable from Time Warner Cable. Of the fifty households surveyed, thirty-four had never subscribed to Time Warner Cable in the Ithaca area, and fourteen had previously subscribed and are considered former subscribers in this report. Of the thirty-four households never subscribing to Time Warner Cable in the Ithaca area, 35 percent reported that cable was not offered in their area. An additional 21 percent reported that they did not watch television. Nine percent (3 households) reported that they could not afford cable television services. Six percent (2 households) reported that TV was adequate without cable. An additional two percent reported that cable services that were offered were of no interest, and an additional 9 percent (3 households) reported that they had DBS service. Eighteen percent (6 households) reported other reasons for not subscribing to cable television service. These responses follow. ■ "I have no interest in TV." ■ "We are pretty new to this area." ■ "Watching TV is limited to the children and it would cause a problem." ■ "My husband does not want it." ■ "We are not around that much." III-1 ■ "When I had cable it was always out." The thirty-four non-subscribers were asked if there was a service which would make them reconsider taking cable service. Of these thirty-four households, sixty-five percent said there was no service which would make them reconsider taking cable, while 27 percent (9 households) reported that there was a service which would make them reconsider taking cable service. These responses follow. ■ "More international programming." ■ "If they offered more flexibility on the selection of channels." ■ "Having influence on getting TV cleaned up. There's so much filthy taking, murder and sex scenes." ■ "We have waited fifteen years for them to offer it in the area, haven't done it, so invested in a satellite dish." ■ "If they offered it in my area, I would subscribe." ■ "If the cable came up our road." ■ "Good price and just a couple of channels. The most important ones like CNN and all the news channels or the Discovery Channel and the History Channel." ■ "Bring the wiring up here where it won't cost three or four hundred dollars. "If they were in my area." Former Cable Subscribers The fourteen former subscribers were asked when they last subscribed to cable in the Ithaca area. Fifty-seven percent of these respondents reported that they had subscribed last more than two years ago, while 36 percent (5 households) reported that they had last III-2 subscribed more than one year ago or less than two. Finally, one household had subscribed to cable within the last six months. The fourteen former subscribers were asked why they stopped subscribing to Time Warner Cable in the Ithaca area. The majority of them, almost two-thirds or 64 percent (9 households) reported that they are unsure as to why their households stopped subscribing to cable television service. Twenty-one percent (3 households) reported that cable service was too expensive, while the remaining two reported that they did not watch enough TV or that there is poor signal quality from the cable service when they had subscribed. These fourteen households, which were former subscribers, were asked if there was a service which would make them reconsider subscribing to cable television service. The majority of 57 percent reported that there was not. Forty-three percent (6 households) of the sample reported that there was a service which might make them reconsider subscribing to Time Warner Cable. These responses follow. ■ "If they could compete with satellite programming." ■ "It would be a choice of channels and the cost." ■ "If I could pick and choose what channels I wanted that I paid for." ■ "I only want a few of the channels." •.. ■ "Probably a little more for your money." ■ "They could offer service in the area.". v III-3 Computer Services All fifty non-subscribing households were asked if they telecommuted to work. Twenty-eight percent (14 households) reported that did, the remainder reported that they did not telecommute to work. All non-subscribing households were asked if they currently owned a computer. Seventy-two percent (36 households) of the sample reported that they had owned a computer. Of these thirty-six households, 72 percent (twenty-six households) reported that they utilized a modem. Of these twenty-six households, twenty-one or 81 percent were currently connected to the Internet. Of the twenty-one households currently connected to the Internet, one stated that they were very likely to take Web access service if provided by Time Warner Cable. An additional four each, were likely and somewhat likely to take cable modem service if provided by Time Warner. Interest in cable access service by respondents who are non-subscribers not connected currently to the Internet were minimal. Interest in New Cable Services All non-subscribers were asked a series of questions concerning their interest in a variety of additional cable services. These responses are listed in Table 3-1 below. III-4 TABLE 3-1 -NON-CABLE HOUSEHOLDS INTERESTED IN FUTURE CABLE CONSUMER SERVICES/PRODUCTS .� SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBERS EXPRESSING SUBSCRIBERS EXPRESSING EXPRESSING POSSIBLE FUTURE "VERY EXPRESSING "SOME "NO INTEREST" SERVICE INTERESTED" "INTERESTED" INTEREST" Programmable 16% 8% 18% 54% remote control Additional channels offered 10% 20% 24% 40% on an a la carte basis Split screen capability 10% 8% 14% 66% Emergency 10% 8% 22% 56% service III-5 SECTION 4 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Following are highlights of some of the survey findings. ■ Cable subscription in the Consortium area tends to be long term with 56 percent subscribing for six or more years. ■ Fifty-two percent of current cable subscribers believe they receive a good value from the cable service they subscribe to. ■ Of the 39 percent of subscribers who do not believe they receive a good value from the basic cable service, the major complaints were high rates, lack of channels, and limited program choices. ■ Twenty-one percent of all subscribers reported problems with picture quality on the cable system. The complaints were widespread with a focus on Channel 8. ■ Eighty percent of those reporting a repair service call said the repair occurred as scheduled, and 9 percent reported the repair did not occur as scheduled. ■ Only 3 percent of the customers that had telephoned the cable company office reported receiving a busy signal, and an additional 9 percent reported being put on hold for a "long time." ■ Repair employees and customer service representatives received good evaluations from respondents. ■ Three percent of subscribers reported experiencing a billing problem. ■ Forty-nine percent of the respondents with installation done during the past two years were very satisfied with the service, and 33 percent were somewhat satisfied. ■ Twenty-eight subscribers with installation done in the past two years waited over four business days for installation. ■ Twenty percent of subscribers reported at least one cable only outage during the past sixty days. ■ Of the 74 subscribers reporting a cable outage over the past sixty days, 29 percent reported more than three. IV-1 ■ Only 41 percent of those requiring a repair call reported that the repair service was scheduled within 24-hours or less. ■ Twenty-two percent of those requesting repair service during the past year made requests for more than two repair visits. ■ Eighty percent of those requiring repairs said the repair occurred as scheduled. ■ Subscriber support for financial backing from the basic service charge for public, educational, and governmental use of the cable system was evident. ■ Viewership of public, educational and government access programming was strong. One-half of all subscribers polled had watched a public access channel within the past six months and of these subscribers, 13 percent, 23 percent, and 5 percent reported daily, weekly, and monthly viewing respectively. ■ Educational access channel 54 was viewed by one-third of the respondents within the past six months. Of these viewers, 5 percent, 24 percent, and 14 percent watched daily, weekly, and monthly respectively. ■ Almost 30 percent reported viewing the local government access channel in the past six months. Of these viewers, 4 percent, 18 percent, and 11 percent respectively, watched daily, weekly, and monthly. ■ Sixty-three of all respondents indicated they owned a personal computer. Of respondents with a personal computer, 81 percent had a modem. ■ Of respondents with a modem, 89 percent are connected to the Internet/World Wide Web and 58 percent of those connected to the Internet/Web are at least somewhat likely to switch to a Web access service provided by the cable company. ■ Of the 206 respondents not owning a computer and/or not using a modem, 30 percent were at least somewhat interested in subscribing to a Web service �- provided by the cable operator. ■ Of the same 206 respondents, 32 percent reported they were likely or very likely to use free Internet access at local community centers. ■ Only 3 percent of subscribers polled reported a billing problem. ■ Forty-three respondents were at least interested or very interested in additional channels offered on an a la carte basis. IV-2 ■ Thirty-three percent of respondents were interested or very interested in programmable remote controls. ■ Interest among residents for competition in the telecommunications market place in Ithaca was keen with most interest in competition to the current cable provider. Based on these findings, it is recommended that during the cable television renewal process, the Consortium address issues identified in this report among which are: ■ Additional channel capacity. ■ Additional support for local public, educational, and governmental access programming. ■ Frequency of outages on the cable system. ■ Signal quality problems identified. ■ Reduction in number of multiple repair calls to the same subscriber. ■ Increase in the percentage of repair requests scheduled within 24-hours. ■ Increase in the percent of instalation accomplished within 48-hours. ■ All calls to the ARU should be taken care of. IV-3 APPENDIX A FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR TIME WARNER CABLE SUBSCRIBERS CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CURRENTLY RECEIVE CABLE FROM TWC Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 380 100.0 t 100.0 t 2 = NO 0 0.0 $ 100.0 % 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 $ 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 t 100.0 % .� ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 a Bar Graph of CURRENTLY RECEIVE CABLE FROM TWC Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ± . . . . ! YES *****************r********************************* ( 38 NO * ( 0 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC RESIDENCE , BUSINESS OR BOTH Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = RESIDENCE 369 97.1 97.1 2 = BOTH 11 2.9 g 100.0 5 = BUSINESS 0 0.0 100.0 k ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of RESIDENCE BUSINESS OR BOTH Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 --------- ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! RESIDENCE ********************************:**************** ( 369 BOTH ** ( 11 ) '�' BUSINESS * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS SUBSCRIPTION ? Number. Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ----- - ------- ---------- 1 = TWO YEARS OR LESS 102 26 .8 % 26.8 °s .. 2 = THREE TO SIX YRS 60 15.8 % 42 .6 3 = OVER SIX YEARS 211 55.5 % 98.2 % 8 = UNSURE 7 1.8 % 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 % 100.0 Missing cases = 0 .. Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS SUBSCRIPTION ? Percent of Total .. value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ i i ii i i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWO YEARS OR LESS ************** ( 102 ) THREE TO SIX YRS ******** ( 60 ) OVER SIX YEARS **************************** ( 211 ) r UNSURE * ( 7 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC TIME BETWEEN REQUEST AND RECEIVE INSTALL Number Percent Cumulative -------------------------------- ------ ------ ------- ---------- 1 = LESS TWO DAYS 20 19.6 $ 19.6 % 2 = TWO DAYS 8 7.8 27.5 % 3 = THREE DAYS 15 14.7 !k 42.2 % 4 = FOUR DAYS 10 9.8 52.0 % 5 = MORE THAN FOUR 29 28.4 80.4 % 8 = UNSURE 20 19.6 1; 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 102 100.0 t 100.0 0 Missing cases = 0 �. Response percent = 100.0 t Bar Graph of TIME BETWEEN REQUEST AND RECEIVE INSTALL Percent of Total " Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! LESS TWO DAYS ********** ( 20 ) TWO DAYS **** ( 8 ) THREE DAYS ******** ( 15 ) FOUR DAYS ***** ( 10 ) MORE THAN FOUR *************** ( 29 ) UNSURE ********** ( 20 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC SATISFACTION WITH CABLE INSTALLATION Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY SATISFIED 50 49.0 % 49.0 % 2 = SATISFIED 34 33 .3 % 82.4 % 3 = SOMEWHAT UNSATIS 7 6.9 $ 89.2 !k 4 = VERY UNSATISFIED 3 2.9 t 92.2 8 - UNSURE 8 7.8 % 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 102 100.0 k 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of SATISFACTION WITH CABLE INSTALLATION Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY SATISFIED ************************* ( 50 ) SATISFIED ***************** ( 34 ) SOMEWHAT UNSATIS **** ( 7 ) VERY UNSATISFIED ** ( 3 ) UNSURE **** ( 8 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM r„ TWC REPAIR NECESSARY DURING PAST YEAR Number Percent Cumulative .,. ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 71 18.7 % 18.7 g 2 = NO 307 80.8 !k 99.5 $ .. 8 = UNSURE 2 0.5 $ 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of REPAIR NECESSARY DURING PAST YEAR �. Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! YES ********** ( 71 ) NO *********************************,r******* ( 307 ) UNSURE * ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC FREQUENCY OF REPAIR SERVICE Number Percent Cumulative _ ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = ONCE 39 54.9 54.9 2 = TWICE 15 21.1 $ 76.1 3 = THREE 9 12 .7 $ 88.7 V 4 = FOUR OR MORE 6 8.5 97.2 !k 8 = UNSURE 2 2.8 'k 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 71 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of FREQUENCY OF REPAIR SERVICE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! `. ONCE ***********,r**************** ( 39 ) TWICE *********** ( 15 ) ` THREE ******* ( 9 ) FOUR OR MORE ***** ( 6 ) UNSURE ** ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) �r .. CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC REPAIR PROMISED WHEN LAST TIME NEEDED Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- .. 1 = 24 HRS OR LESS 29 40.8 % 40.8 0 2 = >24 BUT<48 19 26.8 % 67.6 t 3 = MORE THAN 48 HRS 12 16.9 % 84.5 a 8 = UNSURE 11 15.5 $ 100.0 .. 9 = NA 0 0.0 %- 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 71 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 •- Bar Graph of REPAIR PROMISED WHEN LAST TIME NEEDED Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! .. 24 HRS OR LESS ********************* ( 29 ) >24 BUT<48 ************** ( 19 ) MORE THAN 48 HRS ********* ( 12 ) UNSURE ******** ( 11 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC LAST REPAIR APPOINTMENT KEPT ON SCHEDULE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 57 80.3 % 80.3 % 2 = NO 6 8.5 V 88.7 8 = UNSURE 8 11.3 V 100.0 'k .,. 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 0 ------ ------- ------- Total 71 100.0 % 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of LAST REPAIR APPOINTMENT KEPT ON SCHEDULE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! �.. YES ************************* +*************** ( 57 ) NO ***** ( 6 ) .. UNSURE ****** ( 8 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITRACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ` DID YOU REQUEST EXTENDED REPAIR TIME ? Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 7 58.3 58.3 % ` 2 = NO 5 41.7 100.0 k 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 12 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Sar Graph of DID YOU REQUEST EXTENDED REPAIR TIME ? Percent of Total value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ` ------------ ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *******,r**,t,r***,r***********,r** ( 7 ) `- NO ********************* ( 5 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC COURTESY OF REPAIR PERSONNEL Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = ABOVE AVERAGE 37 52.1 $ 52.1 $ 2 = AVERAGE 26 36.6 $ 88.7 $ 3 = BELOW AVERAGE 1 1.4 $ 90.1 4 = POOR 0 0.0 $ 90.1 $ .. 5 = NO CONTACT 6 8.5 $ 98.6 % 8 = UNSURE 1 1.4 % 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 71 100.0 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of COURTESY OF REPAIR PERSONNEL Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! ABOVE AVERAGE *************************** ( 37 ) AVERAGE ******************* ( 26 ) BELOW AVERAGE * ( 1 ) POOR * ( 0 ) NO CONTACT ***** ( 6 ) UNSURE * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC OUTAGE DURING PAST 60 DAYS Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 74 19.5 V 19.5 % 2 = NO 285 75.0 % 94.5 t 8 = UNSURE 20 5.3 % 99.7 % 9 = NA 1 0.3 t 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 .. Response percent = 100.0 1 Bar Graph of OUTAGE DURING PAST 60 DAYS Percent of Total " Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ********** ( 74 ) NO *********************************,r**** ( 285 ) UNSURE *** ( 20 ) NA * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC FREQUENCY OF CABLE OUTAGES PAST YEAR Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = ONE 28 37.8 % 37.8 % 2 = TWO 20 27.0 % 64.9 % 3 = THREE 9 12.2 % 77.0 % 4 = FOUR 3 4.1 $ 81.1 % 5 = FIVE 1 1.4 % 82.4 6 = SIX OR MORE 9 12.2 % 94.6 7 = OFTEN IN RAIN 1 1.4 % 95.9 ` 8 = UNSURE 3 4.1 % 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % Total 74 100.0 % 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of FREQUENCY OF CABLE OUTAGES PAST YEAR Percent of Tctal Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! ONE ******************* ( 28 ) .. TWO ************** ( 20 ) THREE ******* ( 9 ) FOUR *** ( 3 ) FIVE * ( 1 ) SIX OR MORE ******* ( 9 ) OFTEN IN RAIN * ( 1 ) UNSURE *** ( 3 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM .� TWC HOW LONG DID MOST RECENT OUTAGE LAST Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = LESS THAN 15 MIN 7 9.5 S. 9.5 ; 2 = >15 BUT < 30 MIN 4 5.4 1 14.9 3 = >30 BUT <60 MIN 8 10.8 % 25.7 Is. 4 = > 60 BUT <2 HRS 7 9.5 % 35.1 % 5 = >2HRS BUT <4 HRS 19 25.7 % 60.8 % 6 = >4HRS BUT <8HRS 7 9.5 % 70.3 .� 7 = MORE THAN 8 HRS 15 20.3 % 90.5 % 8 = UNSURE 7 9.5 % 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 1 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 74 100.0 % 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % r. ... Bar Graph of HOW LONG DID MOST RECENT OUTAGE LAST Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ i ii i i i i i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i LESS THAN 15 MIN ***** ( 7 ) >15 BUT < 30 MIN *** ( 4 ) >30 BUT <60 MIN ****** ( 8 ) > 60 BUT <2 HRS ***** ( 7 ) ` >2HRS BUT <4 HRS ************* ( 19 ) >4HRS BUT <8HRS ***** ( 7 ) ` MORE THAN 8 HRS *********** ( 15 ) UNSURE ***** ( 7 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ANY PROBLEMS WITH BILLING Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 10 2.6 % 2.6 2 = NO 363 95.5 V 98.2 8 = UNSURE 6 1.6 t 99.7 % r, 9 = NA 1 0.3 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 e Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 .. Bar Graph of ANY PROBLEMS WITH BILLING Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! .� YES ** ( 10 ) NO ************************************************ ( 363 UNSURE * ( 6 ) NA * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC WHAT WAS BILLING PROBLEM Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = OVERCHARGED 5 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 2 = BILLED ,NO SERV 0 0.0 $ 50.0 $ 3 = NO BILL RECEIVED 0 0.0 $ 50.0 $ 4 = LATE CHARGE PDOK 0 0.0 $ 50.0 $ 5 = ADDED CHARGES 1 10.0 % 60.0 $ 6 = BILL WAS CONFUSING 1 10.0 $ 70.0 $ 7 = OTHER 2 20.0 $ 90.0 $ 8 = UNSURE 1. 10.0 $ 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 10 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ ... Bar Graph of WHAT WAS BILLING PROBLEM Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! OVERCHARGED rr************************* ( 5 ) BILLED ,NO SERV * ( 0 ) ` NO BILL RECEIVED * ( 0 ) LATE CHARGE PDOK * ( 0 ) ADDED CHARGES ****** ( 1 ) BILL WAS CONFUSING ****** ( 1 ) ` OTHER *********** ( 2 ) UNSURE ****** ( 1 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC TELEPHONED CABLE CO. DURING PAST SIX MONTHS? Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- "" 1 = YES 156 41.1 41.1 % 2 = NO 217 57.1 98.2 % 8 = UNSURE 5 1.3 99.5 9 = NA 2 0.5 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of TELEPHONED CABLE CO. DURING PAST SIX MONTHS? Percent of Total �- Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ********************* ( 156 ) NO *****t***********,t*********** ( 217 ) UNSURE * ( 5 ) NA * ( 2 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CO TELEPHONE RESPONSE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 01 = ANS AND HELPED 60 38.5 38.5 % 02 = BUSY NO RESPONSE 1 0.6 39.1 !k 03 = BUSY GOT THROUGH 3 1.9 $ 41.0 $ 04 = HOLD BUT HELPED 31 19.9 % 60.9 05 = LONG HOLD HELPED 11 7.1 % 67.9 06 = HOLD HUNG UP 3 1.9 !k 69.9 !k 07 = HOLD DISCONNECT 1 0.6 !k 70.5 $ 08 = ARU HELPED 22 14.1 $ 84.6 % 09 = ARU NOT HELPED 9 5.8 90.4 !k 10 = NO ONE ANSWERED 0 0.0 t 90.4 0 11 = OTHER 5 3.2 1 93.6 a 12 = UNSURE 10 6.4 % 100.0 % 99 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % .� ------ ------- ------- Total 156 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 a Bar Graph of CO TELEPHONE RESPONSE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! ANS AND HELPED ******************** ( 60 ) BUSY NO RESPONSE * ( 1 ) BUSY GOT THROUGH * ( 3 ) HOLD BUT HELPED ********** ( 31 ) LONG HOLD HELPED **** ( 11 ) ` HOLD HUNG UP * ( 3 ) HOLD DISCONNECT * ( 1 ) ARU HELPED ******** ( 22 ) ARU NOT HELPED *** ( 9 ) NO ONE ANSWERED * ( 0 ) OTHER ** ( 5 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CONTACT WITH CO CSR Number Percent Cumulative �- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 175 46.1 t 46.1 % 2 = NO 200 52.6 !k 98.7 % 8 = UNSURE 3 0.8 99.5 !k 9 = NA 2 0.5 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 k 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 1 Bar Graph of CONTACT WITH CO CSR +� Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ± . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! ww YES ************************ ( 175 ) NO *************************** ( 200 ) UNSURE * ( 3 ) NA * ( 2 ) r.. CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC COURTESY OF CSR Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = ABOVE AVERAGE 65 37.1 t 37.1 % 2 = AVERAGE 98 56.0 % 93.1 $ 3 = BELOW AVERAGE 6 3.4 % 96.6 % 4 = POOR 2 1.1 % 97.7 % 8 = UNSURE 4 2.3 % 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 175 100.0 % 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of COURTESY OF CSR Percent of Total �... Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . I ABOVE AVERAGE ******************* ( 65 ) AVERAGE *****************,r****,t****** ( 98 ) .. BELOW AVERAGE ** ( 6 ) POOR * ( 2 ) UNSURE ** ( 4 ) NA * ( 0 ) r CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC r CHANNELS WITH RECEPTION PROBLEMS Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 78 20.5 20.5 V 2 = NO 291 76.6 97.1 % 8 = UNSURE 10 2.6 $' 99.7 % 9 = NA 1 0.3 g 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 It Missing cases = 0 ` Response percent = 100.0 3 Bar Graph of CHANNELS WITH RECEPTION PROBLEMS Percent of Total ` Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *********** ( 78 ) NO *************************************** ( 291 ) r„ UNSURE ** ( 10 ) NA * ( 1 ) r r CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ADDITIONAL CHANNELS OF PROGRAMMING Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 - VERY INTERESTED 70 18.4 $ 18.4 2 = INTERESTED 95 25.0 % 43.4 3 - SOME INTEREST 72 18.9 V 62.4 4 = NO INTEREST 125 32.9 t 95.3 8 = UNSURE 18 4.7 % 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 t 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of ADDITIONAL CHANNELS OF PROGRAMMING Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . I . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ********** ( 70 ) ` INTERESTED ************* ( 95 ) SOME INTEREST ********** ( 72 ) ` NO INTEREST ***************** ( 125 ) UNSURE *** ( 18 ) r CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITRACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC PROGRAMMABLE REMOTE CONTROL Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY INTERESTED 51 13 .4 % 13.4 2 = INTERESTED 74 19.5 32.9 3 = SOME INTEREST 79 20.8 53.7 Is 4 = NO INTEREST 137 36.1 89.7 8 = UNSURE 39 10.3 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 3 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 �- Bar Graph of PROGRAMMABLE REMOTE CONTROL Percent of Total value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ******* ( 51 ) INTERESTED ********** ( 74 ) SOME INTEREST *********** ( 79 ) NO INTEREST ******************* ( 137 ) ` UNSURE ****** ( 39 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC SPLIT SCREEN CAPABILITY Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY INTERESTED 41 10.8 $ 10.8 % 2 = INTERESTED 70 18.4 $ 29.2 $ 3 = SOME INTEREST 59 15.5 $ 44.7 $ 4 = NO INTEREST 202 53.2 $ 97.9 $ 8 = UNSURE 8 2.1 $ 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 It 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Bar Graph of SPLIT SCREEN CAPABILITY Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ****** ( 41 ) INTERESTED ********** ( 70 ) SOME INTEREST ******** ( 59 ) NO INTEREST *************************** ( 202 ) UNSURE ** ( 8 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC DO YOU TELECOMMUTE TO WORK Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------• ------- ---------- 1 = YES 75 19.7 19.7 2 = NO 300 78.9 t 98.7 t 8 = UNSURE 4 1.1 % 99.7 %- 9 9 = NA 1 0.3 t 100.0 t Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 t Bar Graph of DO YOU TELECOMMUTE TO WORK Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ********** ( 75 ) NO **************************************** ( 300 ) ... UNSURE * ( 4 ) NA * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CURRENTLY OWN COMPUTER Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- "" 1 = YES 240 63.2 t 63.2 % 2 = NO 133 35.0 !k 98.2 % 8 = UNSURE 6 1.6 V 99.7 W 9 = NA 1 0.3 % 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of CURRENTLY OWN COMPUTER Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ***************,r****rt*********** ( 240 ) NO ****************** ( 133 ) UNSURE * ( 6 ) NA * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC UTILIZE A MODEM Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 195 81.3 $ 81.3 % 2 = NO 40 16.7 1 97.9 % 8 = UNSURE 5 2.1 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 240 100.0 k 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of UTILIZE A MODEM Percent of Total value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ,t*********,r******************a*********** ( 195 ) NO ********* ( 40 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC IN PAST 6 MOS. WATCHED LOCAL GOVN. ACCESS 53 Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 - YES 109 28.7 $ 28.7 t 2 - NO 263 69.2 V 97.9 %- 8 = UNSURE 4 1.1 % 98.9 V 9 - NA 4 1.1 t 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of IN PAST 6 MOS. WATCHED LOCAL GOVN. ACCESS 53 Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . I . . . . ! YES *************** ( 109 ) NO ********rt************************** ( 263 ) ... UNSURE * ( 4 ) NA * ( 4 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC FREQUENCY OF VIEWING LOCAL GOVN ACCESS Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = DAILY 4 3.7 % 3.7 % 2 - WEEKLY 20 18.3 $ 22.0 $ 3 = MONTHLY 12 11.0 $ 33.0 $ 4 = OCCASIONALLY 71 65.1 $ 98.2 $ 8 = UNSURE 2 1.8 $ 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 109 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of FREQUENCY OF VIEWING LOCAL GOVN ACCESS Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! DAILY ** ( 4 ) WEEKLY ********** ( 20 ) •- MONTHLY ****** ( 12 ) OCCASIONALLY ********************************* ( 71 ) UNSURE * ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC IN PAST 6 MOS. WATCHED PUBLIC ACCESS 13, 2,OR 57 Number Percent Cumulative �- ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 188 49.5 % 49.5 2 = NO 184 48.4 97.9 8 = UNSURE 7 1.8 99.7 9 = NA 1 0.3 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 !k Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of IN PAST 6 MOS. WATCHED PUBLIC ACCESS 13, 2,OR 57 Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *******,r*****,r**,r******** ( 188 ) NO ************************* ( 184 ) UNSURE * ( 7 ) NA * ( 1 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC FREQUENCY OF VIEWING PUBLIC ACCESS Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = DAILY 25 13.3 $ 13.3 t 2 = WEEKLY 43 22.9 t 36.2 t 3 = MONTHLY 9 4.8 !k 41.0 4 = OCCASIONALLY 109 58.0 % 98.9 ` 8 • UNSURE 2 1.1 t 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 t 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 188 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent 100.0 Bar Graph of FREQUENCY OF VIEWING PUBLIC ACCESS Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 r ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! DAILY ******* ( 25 ) " WEEKLY ************ ( 43 ) MONTHLY *** ( 9 ) ` OCCASIONALLY ***************************** ( 109 ) UNSURE * ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM •- TWC IN PAST 6MOS. WATCHED ED. ACCESS 54 Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 129 33.9 $ 33.9 % 2 = NO 231 60.8 !k 94.7 $ 8 = UNSURE 16 4.2 !k 98.9 % 9 = NA 4 1.1 $ 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 w 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of IN PAST 6MOS. WATCHED ED. ACCESS 54 Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ***************** ( 129 ) NO ******************************* ( 231 ) UNSURE *** ( 16 ) NA * ( 4 ) r.. v v a.e .� CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE, CONSORTIUM TWC FREQUENCY OF VIEWING LOCAL ED ACCESS Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ----- - ------- ---------- 1 = DAILY 6 4.7 t 4.7 1 2 = WEEKLY 31 24.0 28.7 % 3 = MONTHLY 18 14.0 0 42.6 t 4 = OCCASIONALLY 70 54.3 !k 96.9 0 8 = UNSURE 4 3 .1 % 100.0 0 9 = NA 0 0.0 t 100.0 1 ----- - ------- ------- Total 129 3.00.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of FREQUENCY OF VIEWING LOCAL ED ACCESS Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ . . . . ! . . . . f . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . DAILY *** ( 6 ) WEEKLY ************* ( 31 ) MONTHLY ******* ( 18 ) OCCASIONALLY **************************** ( 70 ) UNSURE ** ( 4 ) NA * ( 0 ) i i CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC IMPORTANCE OF MONTHLY PEG CHARGE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY IMPORTANT 83 21.8 %- 21.8 2 = IMPORTANT 86 22.6 t 44.5 3 = SOME IMPORT 83 21.8 t 66.3 4 = NO IMPORTANCE 119 31.3 %- 97.6 g 8 = UNSURE 7 1.8 % 99.5 $ 9 = NA 2 0.5 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of IMPORTANCE OF MONTHLY PEG CHARGE Percent of Total i Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . I . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . I . . . . ! VERY IMPORTANT *********** ( 83 ) IMPORTANT ************ ( 86 ) SOME IMPORT *********** ( 83 ) NO IMPORTANCE **************** ( 119 ) UNSURE * ( 7 ) NA * ( 2 ) i 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ACCESS INTERNET Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY INTERESTED 13 6.3 $ 6.3 % 2 = INTERESTED 12 5.8 12.1 % 3 = SOME INTEREST 38 18.4 30.6 % 4 - NO INTEREST 116 56.3 t 86.9 w 8 = UNSURE 5 2.4 89.3 % 9 = NA 22 10.7 100.0 4 ------ ------- ------- Total 206 100.0 100.0 Missing cases - 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of ACCESS INTERNET Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED **** ( 13 ) INTERESTED *** ( 12 ) ... SOME INTEREST ********** ( 38 ) NO INTEREST ***************************** ( 116 ) _ UNSURE ** ( 5 ) NA ****** ( 22 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC LIKELY TO USE FREE INTERNET SERVICE AT LOCAL COMMUNITY CENTERS Number Percent Cumulative _ ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY LIKELY 40 19.4 V 19.4 2 = LIKELY 27 13.1 !k 32.5 % 3 = NOT LIKELY 134 65.0 % 97.6 $ 8 = UNSURE 5 2.4 t 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 206 100.0 t 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent - 100.0 t Bar Graph of LIKELY TO USE FREE INTERNET SERVICE AT LOCAL COMMUNITY CENTERS ` Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY LIKELY ********** ( 40 ) LIKELY ******* ( 27 ) NOT LIKELY ****************************** ** ( 134 ) UNSURE ** ( 5 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CADI,f: CONSORTIUM TWC LIKELY TO USE FREE INTERNET SERVICE AT 1,">r-AI-, COMMUNITY 1,i.,Id rERS Number Percent Cumulative ----------------------------------------- ----- ------- ---------- I - VERY LIKELY 62. 16.3 t 16.3 t 2 = LIKELY KO 1.5.8 t 32.1 t 3 =_NOT LIKELY 250 65.8 t 97.9 t 8 = UNSURE 7 1.8 It 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0 .0 t 100.0 t ---.._ .------ ------- Total 380 100.0 t 100.0 t Missing cases = o Response percfnt 100.0 t Bar Graph of LIKELY TO USE FREE INTERNFT SrRVICE AT LOCAL, COMMUNITY CENTERS 1 Percent of Too al Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 KO 70 80 90 100 ------------ 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . I . . . . 1 . . . . 1 .. VERY LIKELY ********* ( 62 ) LIKELY ******** ( 60 ) r.. NOT LIKELY **********************�********** ( 250 ) UNSURE ( 7 ) ................... 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC _ GOOD VALUE FROM TW CABLE SERVICE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 196 51.6 % 51.6 t 2 NO 149 39.2 !k 90.8 t 8 = UNSURE 34 8.9 $ 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 k 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 .� Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of GOOD VALUE FROM TW CABLE SERVICE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ i i i i ii i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES **,r*********************** ( 196 ) NO ******************** ( 149 ) UNSURE ***** ( 34 ) PIA * ( 0 ) r.. 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM ` TWC COMPETITION TO TW CABLE BY ANOTHER CABLE OPF.RATORNumber Percent Cumulative ` ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY IMPORTANT 91 23 .9 % 23.9 % 2 = IMPORTANT 104 27.4 % 51.3 % 3 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 83 21.8 % 73.2 4 = NOT IMPORTANT 88 23.2 % 96.3 % 6 = 1 0.3 % 96.6 % 8 = UNSURE 13 3.4 % 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 380 100.0 % 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of COMPETITION TO TW CABLE BY ANOTHER CABLE OPERATOR Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ i i i i ► i i i i i t VERY IMPORTANT ************ ( 91 ) IMPORTANT ************** ( 104 ) SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT *********** ( 83 ) .,. NOT IMPORTANT ************ ( 88 ) 6 * ( 1 ) .. UNSURE ** ( 13 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC COMPETITION TO TW CABLE BY THE LOCAL TELE CO. Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 = VERY IMPORTANT 53 13.9 % 13.9 %- 2 - IMPORTANT 80 21.1 °s 35.0 %- 3 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 88 23.2 1 58.2 k 4 = NOT IMPORTANT 127 33.4 % 91.6 !k 8 = UNSURE 29 7.6 S. 99.5 9 = NA 2 0.5 % 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 380 3.00.0 k 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 .. Bar Graph of COMPETITION TO TW CABLE BY THE LOCAL TELE CC). Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! .� VERY IMPORTANT ******* ( 53 ) IMPORTANT *********** ( 80 ) SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT ************ ( 88 ) NOT IMPORTANT ***************** ( 127 ) UNSURE **** ( 29 ) NA * ( 2 ) r.. CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC COMPETITION TO THE LOCAL TELE CO. BY TW CABLE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ----- -- ------- ---------- 1 = VERY IMPORTANT 46 12 .1 12 .1 6 2 = IMPORTANT 67 17.6 0 29.7 0 3 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 97 25.5 a 55.3 °s 4 = NOT IMPORTANT 138 36 .3 0 91.6 0 6 = 1 0.3 a 91.8 8 = UNSURE 31 8.2 100.0 °s `- 9 = NA 0 0.0 g 100.0 Total 380 100.0 100.0 °s Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 s Bar Graph of COMPETITION TO THE LOCAL TELE CO. BY TW CA13LE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ` ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY IMPORTANT ******* ( 46 ) ` IMPORTANT ********* ( 67 ) SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT ************* ( 97 ) NOT IMPORTANT ******************* ( 138 ) 6 * ( 1 ) UNSURE ***** ( 31 ) NA * ( 0 ) APPENDIX B FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR UNSERVED AREAS 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC RESIDENCE , BUSINESS OR BOTH Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = RESIDENCE 44 88.0 t 88.0 $ 2 = BOTH 6 12.0 !k 100.0 k 5 = BUSINESS 0 0.0 !k 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of RESIDENCE BUSINESS OR BOTH Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! RESIDENCE ********************************************* ( 44 } BOTH ******* ( 6 ) BUSINESS * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CURRENTLY RECEIVE CABLE FROM TWC Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- I = YES 0 0.0 % 0.0 % 2 = NO 50 100.0 % 100.0 %, 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 % 100.0 t- 9 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of CURRENTLY RECEIVE CABLE FROM TWC Percent of Total value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! L YES * ( 0 ) NO *******************************+******************* ( 5( UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) ` CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC HAVE YOU EVER SUBSCRIBED TO TWC CABLE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 = YES 14 28.0 $ 28.0 % 2 = NO 34 68.0 $ 96.0 % 8 = UNSURE 2 4.0 $ 100.0 $ �.. 9 - NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of HAVE YOU EVER SUBSCRIBED TO TWC CABLE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *************** ( 14 ) NO *,t****,c,t*,r******************,t**,r*** ( 34 ) UNSURE *** ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC MAIN REASON FOR NOT SUBSCRIBING TO CABLE SERVICE Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = CABLE NOT OFFERED IN MY AREA 12 35.3 $ 35.3 $ 2 = DON'WATCH TV 7 20.6 $ 55.9 %- 3 3 = CANNOT AFFORD 3 8.8 $ 64.7 $ 4 = TV IS ADEQUATE WITHOUT CABLE 2 5.9 $ 70.6 $ 5 = CABLE SERVICES OFFERED ARE OF NO INTEREST 1 2.9 % 73.5 $ 6 = HAVE DBS 3 8.8 $ 82.4 $ 7 = OTHER 6 17.6 $ 100.0 $ ... 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 % 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 34 100.0 $ 100.0 % Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of MAIN REASON FOR NOT SUBSCRIBING TO CABLE SERVICE Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! CABLE NOT OFFERED IN MY AREA ****************** ( 12 ) DON'WATCH TV *********** ( 7 ) CANNOT AFFORD ***** ( 3 ) TV IS ADEQUATE WITHOUT CABLE *** ( 2 ) CABLE SERVICES OFFERED ARE OF NO INTEREST ** ( 1 ) .s. HAVE DBS ***** ( 3 ) OTHER ********* ( 6 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) r.. CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC WHEN DID YOU LAST SUBSCRIBE IN THE AREA Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 s SIX MONTHS OR LESS 1 7.1 V 7.1 % 2 - SEVEN MONTHS TO ONE YEAR AGO 0 0.0 t 7.1 ` 3 = MORE THAN 1 YR LESS THAN 2 5 35.7 t 42.9 4 4 - MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO 8 57.1 t 100.0 % 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 4 100.0 % 9 a NA 0 0.0 t 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 14 100.0 100.0 Bar Graph of WHEN DID YOU LAST SUBSCRIBE IN THE AREA .. Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! SIX MONTHS OR LESS **** ( 1 ) SEVEN MONTHS TO ONE YEAR AGO * ( 0 ) MORE THAN 1 YR LESS THAN 2 ****************** ( 5 ) MORE THAN TWO YEARS ACCO ***************************** ( 8 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) .� NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC IS THERE A SERVICE WHICH WOULD MAKE YOU RECONSIDER .� Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 - YES 9 26.5 % 26.5 % 2 = NO 22 64.7 t 91.2 % 8 = UNSURE 3 8.8 g 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 V 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 34 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 t Bar Graph of IS THERE A SERVICE WHICH WOULD MAKE YOU RECONSIDER Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ************** ( 9 ) NO ********************************* ( 22 ) UNSURE ***** ( 3 ) ... NA * ( 0 ) L TWC HOW LONG WERE YOU A SUBSCRIBER Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = SIX MONTHS OR LESS 1 7.1 % 7.1 $ 2 = SEVEN MONTHS TO 1YR 1 7.1 % 14.3 3 = MORE THAN 1 YR LESS THAN 2 1 7.1 % 21.4 % 4 = MORE THAN TWO YEARS 10 71.4 $ 92.9 $ 8 = UNSURE 1 7.1 % 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 4 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 14 100.0 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 % Bar Graph of HOW LONG WERE YOU A SUBSCRIBER Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! r.. SIX MONTHS OR LESS **** ( 1 ) SEVEN MONTHS TO 1YR **** ( 1 ) MORE THAN 1 YR LESS THAN 2 ` MORE THAN TWO YEARS ************************************ ( 10 ) UNSURE **** ( 1 ) ... NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC WHY DID YOU STOP SUBSCRIBING Number_ Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 - TOO EXPENSIVE 3 21.4 21.4 $ 2 = DID NOT WATCH ENOUGH 1 7.1 $ 28.6 $ 3 = POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE 0 0.0 It 28.6 $ 4 - POOR SIGNAL QUALITY 1 7.1 $ 35.7 $ 5 = POOR PROGRAMMING 0 0.0 $ 35.7 $ 6 - CABLE CO. DISCONNECTED SERVICE 0 0.0 $ 35.7 $ 7 - TOO MUCH REPETITION 0 0.0 $ 35.7 $ 8 = UNSURE 9 64.3 $ 100.0 % 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 14 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of WHY DID YOU STOP SUBSCRIBING v Percent of Total .. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! TOO EXPENSIVE *********** ( 3 ) DID NOT WATCH ENOUGH **** ( 1 ) POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE * ( 0 ) POOR SIGNAL QUALITY **** ( 1 ) POOR PROGRAMMING * ( 0 ) CABLE CO. DISCONNECTED SERVICE * ( 0 ) TOO MUCH REPETITION * ( 0 ) UNSURE ,r*,t,t**,r******,r******************* ( 9 ) ... NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ` IS THERE A SERVICE WHICH WOULD MAKE YOU RECONSIDER Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 = YES 6 42.9 t 42.9 t 2 = NO 8 57.1 t 100.0 t 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 t 100.0 y 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 14 100.0 100.0 t ` Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 t ` Bar Graph of IS THERE A SERVICE WHICH WOULD MAKE YOU RECONSIDER Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES ********************** ( 6 ) NO ***************************** ( 8 ) .. UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) a.. v �- CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC DO YOU TELECOMMUTE TO WORK Number. Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ... 1 = YES 14 28.0 1; 28.0 2 = NO 36 72.0 % 100.0 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 !k 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 1; 100.0 % r.. ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 4 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 �- Response percent = 100.0 1 Bar Graph of DO YOU TELECOMMUTE TO WORK r.. Percent of Total .. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *************** ( 14 ) NO *,t*********************************** ( 36 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) ... CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC CURRENTLY OWN COMPUTER Number. Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- �•• 1 = YES 36 72.0 $ 72.0 2 = NO 14 28.0 % 100.0 $ 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 !k 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 �— ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 % 100.0 Missing cases = 0 �- Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of CURRENTLY OWN COMPUTER Percent of Total .. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES rt****,t+t**********,r****,t******,r******* ( 36 ) NO *************** ( 14 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) r NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC UTILIZE A MODEM Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 a YES 26 72.2 % 72.2 t 2 s NO 9 25.0 $ 97.2 % 8 s UNSURE 1 2.8 t 100.0 t 9 s NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 t Total 36 100.0 t 100.0 1 Missing cases = o Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of UTILIZE A MODEM Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . 1 . . . . ! �.. YES26 ) NO ************* ( 9 ) .. UNSURE ** ( 1 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITRACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC ACCESS INTERNET Number_ Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- .� 1 = VERY INTERESTED 5 10.0 10.0 W 2 = INTERESTED 1 2.0 12.0 3 = SOME INTEREST 4 8.0 20.0 4 = NO INTEREST 14 28.0 48.0 $ r.. 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 48.0 9 = NA 26 52.0 1 100.0 $ Total 50 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of ACCESS INTERNET Percent of Total �.. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ****** ( 5 ) v INTERESTED ** ( 1 ) SOME INTEREST ***** ( 4 ) NO INTEREST *************** ( 14 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA *******************,r******* ( 26 ) TAKE TWC FOR WEB ACCESS Number. Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 - VERY LIKELY 1. 2.6 t 2.6 t 2 = LIKELY 4 10.3 t 12.8 t 3 = SOMEWHAT LIKELY 4 10.3 t 23.1 t 4 s NOT LIKELY 4 10.3 t 33.3 % 8 = UNSURE 2 5 .1 t 38.5 % 9 • NA 24 61.5 t 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 39 100.0 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of TAKE TWC FOR WEB ACCESS Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 r ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY LIKELY ** ( 1 ) LIKELY ****** ( 4too ) SOMEWHAT LIKELY ****** ( 4 ) NOT LIKELY ****** ( 4 ) UNSURE *** ( 2 ) NA ,t****************************** ( 24 ) r CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC PROGRAMMABLE REMOTE CONTROL Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ` 1 = VERY INTERESTED 8 16.0 $ 16.0 g 2 = INTERESTED 4 8.0 $ 24.0 !k 3 = SOME INTEREST 9 18.0 $ 42.0 % 4 = NO INTEREST 27 54.0 !k 96.0 $ ` 8 = UNSURE 2 4.0 % 100.0 t 9 = NA 0 0.0 !k 100.0 % ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 t 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 t Bar Graph of PROGRAMMABLE REMOTE CONTROL Percent of Tota]. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ l . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ********* ( 8 ) INTERESTED ***** ( 4 ) low SOME INTEREST ********** ( 9 ) NO INTEREST **************************** ( 27 ) UNSURE *** ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) 4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUM TWC �- ADDITIONAL CHANNELS OF PROGRAMMING Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 - VERY INTERESTED 5 10.0 $ 10.0 $ 2 - INTERESTED 10 20.0 $ 30.0 $ 3 s SOME INTEREST 12 24.0 $ 54.0 $ 4 - NO INTEREST 20 40.0 $ 94.0 % 8 = UNSURE 3 6.0 $ 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 $ 100.0 $ ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 $ 100.0 $ Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 $ Bar Graph of ADDITIONAL CHANNELS OF PROGRAMMING Percent of Total ti. Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! .. VERY INTERESTED ****** ( 5 ) INTERESTED *********** ( 10 ) .. SOME INTEREST ************* ( 12 ) NO INTEREST ********************* ( 20 ) ...' UNSURE **** ( 3 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CAB!.•r CONSORTIUM TWC EMERGENCY SERVICE Numbed Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY INTERESTED 5 10.0 10.0 0 2 = INTERESTED 4 8.0 g 18.0 0 3 = SOME INTEREST 11 22 .0 °s 40.0 4 = NO INTEREST 28 56.0 96.0 0 8 = UNSURE 2 4.0 °s 100.0 9 = NA 0 0.0 1 100.0 ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 % 100.0 a Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 t Bar Graph of EMERGENCY SERVICE Percent of Total ... Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ****** ( 5 ) INTERESTED ***** ( 4 ) SOME INTEREST ************ ( 11 ) NO INTEREST ***************************** ( 28 ) UNSURE *** ( 2 ) NA * ( 0 ) -4,4CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE CONSORTIUtd TWC SPLIT SCREEN. CAPABILITY Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = VERY INTERESTED 5 10.0 t 10.0 % 2 = INTERESTED 4 8.0 t 18.0 %- 3 = SOME INTEREST 7 14.0 V 32.0 % 4 = NO INTEREST 33 66.0 % 98.0 1; 8 - UNSURE 1 2.0 t 100.0 % .� 9 = NA 0 0.0 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 50 100.0 100.0 t Missing cases = 0 ` Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of SPLIT SCREEN CAPABILITY Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! VERY INTERESTED ****** ( 5 ) INTERESTED ***** ( 4 ) SOME INTEREST ******** ( 7 ) NO INTEREST *******************,►************** ( 33 ) UNSURE ** ( 1 ) NA * ( 0 ) CONSUMER MARKET SURVEY ITHACA AREA CABLE, CONSORTIUM TWC CURRENTLY CONNECTED TO INTERNET/WEB Number Percent Cumulative ---------------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- 1 = YES 21 80.8 V 80.8 % 2 = NO 5 19.2 !k 100.0 '- 8 = UNSURE 0 0.0 % 100.0 $ 9 = NA 0 0.0 % 100.0 t ------ ------- ------- Total 26 100.0 $ 100.0 Missing cases = 0 Response percent = 100.0 Bar Graph of CURRENTLY CONNECTED TO INTERNET/WEB Percent of Total Value Labels 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ------------ ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! . . . . ! YES *,r*****,r********************************* ( 21 ) NO ********** ( 5 ) UNSURE * ( 0 ) NA * ( 0 ) APPENDIX C ww SUBSCRIBER RESPONSES AS TO WHY CABLE IS NOT A GOOD VALUE APPENDIX C SUBSCRIBER RESPONSES AS TO WHY CABLE SERVICE IS NOT A GOOD VALUE Of the subscribers that felt cable was not a good value: Too Expensive • " I think it's too expensive." 0 "I think it's too expensive." • " I lived elsewhere and received the same service for less `- money." • "I feel that the prices are going up." • "It's too expensive. You can't get certain channels unless you receive others." • "The price you pay isn't worth what's on TV." • "They are charging too much and adding more useless channels, therefore giving them an excuse to charge more." • "The price isn't competitive for the quality you get from a dish TV. The dish is higher quality for the same rate." • "It's very expensive. The types of things we're getting, I really don't care for and we'll receive a package that contains a lot of what we don't want and just a few things that we do want. It would be nice to select what we wanted and pay for that." o "It is very expensive. I do not have a choice to select the channels because it is already selected. The packages are not good in HB02." • "We feel it is way too expensive. The biggest issue is cost." • "It could be cheaper." C-1 • "It costs too much." • "It costs so very much money for the same service in the surrounding area, it is $10-$15 more. The way they divide up the channels on the basics, we did like the past cluster of channels, such as MTV, the Weather Channel and CNN. They do not come on basics." • "I think they charge too much for their service. They have no competition." • "I think it is a little expensive." • "It is overpriced for what I get." • "It is pretty high. We do get good service, except for those few channels which are scrambled sometimes." • "It's expensive. I pay forty dollars a month and I don't even have premium channels." • "I feel it's highly overpriced." • "We don't really get that much for the money. I just mean it is really expensive." • "Way overpriced. We are not getting the channels we want. A lot of selling programs and not the games I want. They black out. A lot of junk. Gardening channels. Not enough movie channels. We pay for it. Do not get WGN. Expensive." • "Overpriced. You get nothing if you don't have cable." • "Expensive." • "Too high. The monthly charge." • "I feel the basic service is too expensive for what I get plus the fees." • "I think they should charge less for the very basic service and they should include the Weather Channel with basic." C-2 •- • "How can you get value for your dollar today for anything?" • "I think it is overpriced for the few channels you get. Actually, the selection is poor due to duplication of channels." • "I think it is too expensive." • "It is a little bit high." 0 "I am tired of the continuing price increases and the additional channels I do not watch." • "I pay too much." • "Personally, it's too expensive. There should be something in between the Marquis and basic cable service." •- • "I think it is really overpriced." • "It is too expensive for what they are giving me." ftw • "Because everything is overpriced." • "I just feel that it is too expensive." • "It is overpriced and poorly organized." • "It is too expensive." • "I'm getting basic and it cost fifteen dollars a month and where I come from you don't need it. You have no choice but to get cable if you want to watch TV in Ithaca." • "Way too expensive and they are raising it 5% next month." • "I think their prices are too high. They are going up." • "The price is too high." • "Think it's overpriced. Friends in bigger cities pay less for the same service." • "The bills are high." C-3 • "Think it's too expensive." • "Paying more for less. Not as good a value." • "Think it's costly." • "Too expensive and too many commercials." • "I wish it were less expensive. I think it's overpriced." • "Overpriced. Deregulation did not lower prices like they said they would. Deregulation did not lower prices and make it more competitive." • "I would rather see them hold the prices down. Some of the new channels have no interest. The new channels should be added as premium channels. That would hold down the price. I enjoy a lot of the channels, but some of them I don't need and don't use and it makes the bill a little higher. A lot of people are limited on their income and it makes it rather hard for them." • "We pay too much and they always black out. They offer 74 channels but you can only see about 20. We pay too much money and not enough channels to watch." • "I think it costs too much." • "It's expensive. I tried to fine tune my needs and it's either buy it all or you don't get anything." • "I think it's too expensive. The rates keep going up." • "It could be a little less expensive for what it offers." • "Well I know they have to have raises but I think it's a little too ` much too fast." • "It's too expensive." C-4 • "Television used to be free so any charge you feel is too much. I don't feel I should be paying anything. I don't feel any charge is reasonable." • "It's too expensive and the quality of programming is sub-par." • "It's too expensive." • "It's so expensive to just receive the basic channels which is free to everyone else in the country. The next step up from the basic network is pretty expensive." • "In this area you have to get cable to receive any stations at all, so I have to pay at least twenty dollars a month to watch TV. I grew up in a area where I didn't have to pay to receive the major networks and I don't feel I should have to pay twenty dollars a month." • "It's too expensive." • "You don't get jack. We get the lowest stations offered, four stations, and it's too expensive to get more channels when we aren't going to watch all of them." 0 "Too expensive for what I get. I don't get very much for what I pay for." r • "We eliminated a number of channels because it was too expensive. They should have something in between the basic and premium. Between thirteen and thirty-six dollars a month." • "Like I said it's extremely expensive. There are other companies where you can buy single channels. The other companies have a better pay-per-view service, the decent movies come on at bad times like five in the morning with our service." • "Too expensive. Not really a good value." • "It's too expensive. Service is too bad. I want to get a Roadrunner, but we just had a new house built and they couldn't tell us if we could get it." C-5 • "Rates are too high." • "Too expensive." • "I think our bill is too high for what we get." • "Too expensive. We don't watch much and we have to pay a monthly fee and we watch about five hours a week. I guess we are not your typical customers and see no need to watch that much cable and why should we pay so much?" • "The price, the cable has gotten expensive and without cable there is no TV." Not Enough Channels, Repeats, Not Enough Programming • " The shows are too many repeats." • " My family gets more stations where they live. They have more channels." • "There are better channels than what's getting in the loophole somehow, and the cable company is offering an undesirable channel to justify raising the prices." • "There are times that there are the same things on two or three different channels. We were told that there would be something different on every channel. The programming is very lousy. I don't like what they have." • "The channels I get with all the duplications of channels is not worth for what I pay for it." -- • "Most of the channels on there are useless." • "It has all been packaged. I do not get enough for my money." • "I would like to see more channels. A lot here I don't care to watch. I understand they are going to put new ones on." C-6 • "They change their programs all the time and take out the good ones." • "They carry too much junk on the basic. Like "E" Channel 5, and 2 Fox stations. I prefer CNN and the Weather Channel." • "Not that great of a selection of channels." 0 "The History Channel, Stock Market (28), and the Weather Channel are the current stuff I like. The movie selections are very poor." • "It costs so very much money for the same service in the surrounding area, it is $10-$15 more. The way they divide up the channels on the basics, we did like the past cluster of channels, such as MTV, the Weather Channel and CNN. They do not come on basics." w • "I have debated on getting a dish so I could get the football games I wanted to see." • "The stations we have aren't that great for what we're paying. Would like good stations, not crap." • "It's a personal thing. I don't like the programs. It's hardly worth the price." • "We get a lot of channels we never use. If we could pick the channels we use and be charged for them, I would be happier." • "We get the basic channels only, but half the channels are useless because they are local cable access, foreign language channels, I can't imagine anyone watching. Basically, we watch 2-12. When in England, for $19.00, they have Internet hookup, phone service and TV cable. We would never get this here. They started installing it in 1995." • "Number of channels I don't use and the number of channels I would like to have." C-7 • "I'm not really satisfied with the channels we get for the money we're paying and the fact there are some we'd want, but don't want some of the channels in the tier. It's either Time Warner or nothing." • "I don't like most of the channels and they added more channels and charge for them. I could care less for most of the channels I receive like the country channel and the gardening channels. I really could care less for them. Plus the interference on my cable." • "The way the valley is structured here, it is impossible to get television reception. We pay for basic service and we get 14 channels. I noticed that other people in the country get more channels than we do for the same amount of money. I don't like that they still make you rent the cable boxes and the remote control. They don't have the technology to get cable-ready television." 0 "I think too much of the same thing repeats." • "Because I do not get the channels I want. I am spending forty dollars and looking at what I do not want to." • "I think that we should be able to pick what channel we want." • "I want the International Channel." • "Because the basic cable does not have much on it and the quality is not that good." • "Sometimes when I change the channels there is nothing on to watch so I ask myself why do I even pay for cable." -- • "I want to buy individual programs that are available in my area. I don't want packaging." • "I do not use a lot of the channels that I am forced to purchase in order to get the Weather Channel and CNN. Also, I resent them adding channels I don't want and raising the cost of my service. Some of these channels of very poor quality and I just don't want them." C-8 • "I feel that the channels offered are too standard. The company should offer better, more specialized channels at a better rate." • "Don't get all the channels we like." • "You can't choose, you have to buy blocks of programming and I don't like that." • "The programs are good, some of them and some of them are just terrible." • "There is nothing there. They don't offer anything." • "There are so many channels that are repetitive." 0 "I think the current cable company is ruthless. It's structuring of its offerings. I really resented it when they took off CNN and the Weather Channel and moved them to a higher price package." • "They play the same programs year after year and over and over." • "Umm... it's because so many other companies have more channels and more abilities to customize the channels you get. With Time Warner you get basic which is basically nothing. You should be able to buy one channel." • "Some of the programs I don't watch. I'm canceling some of my channels. What I like, some people don't." • "I get a low level of service and I feel from the amount I pay per month from the low level of service you receive I don't get what should be included in the basic service • "They've added new channels which I have no interest in and the rates keep going up. Out of the new channels they give you, only one is interesting. It's a monopoly to a degree. Plus the system that I have, I have to have an extra box in order to get an expanded tier and there's other areas I have visited that don't have to obtain an extra box. For instance, if I want to watch one program and tape another there's a whole other process I have to go through with the extra box." C-9 • "Because in order to get one channel that we enjoy watching, we have pay for the whole series of channels that I don't even use at all." r Other • "I don't have movie channels and I just watch ESPN. I have expanded channels." 0 "No one has come to repair my service." • "I am getting poor pictures, service that is poor, and over billed." • "Feel that Time Warner is taking unfair advantage of geographic location." • "If there is an outage, it may take two days and there's no adjustment for inconvenience. I don't believe in paying for services not available. With satellite dishes, picture and reliability is much better than that of the cable company. I think the big thing is they are not unreasonable with the product, but the quality." • "It's a waste of time. Because it just is. Watching TV is a waste of time." v • "We don't watch TV much." C-10