Skip to content
Cable Television Laboratories Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Cable Television Laboratories Inc

Cablelabs co-innovates unexpected solutions that transform and inspire our industry.

$129k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$1.6MScience & Tech$924kArts & Culture$129kCommunity Improvement$121kEmployment$48kHousing & Shelter$44kInternational$20kPhilanthropy$20kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $115,100, the rows itemized in this filing. The $129,316 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $14,216 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $110k
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$119M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC$40,000
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY$35,000
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION-SILICON$20,000
WICT ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER$15,000
PCS FOR PEOPLE$5,100
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY25–25, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PCS FOR PEOPLE: $5k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
PA
NJ
CA
CO
AZ
NC
DC
GA
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 16 repeat orgs$387k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
9

Total granted

$2.5M
$382k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+21%

Still filing today

75%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureHealthInternationalHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • NY
    New York University
    3× · 2017–2021 · $400k · revenue +76%
  • CM
    Carnegie Mellon University
    5× · 2017–2025 · $330k · revenue +15%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2025 · $309k · revenue +79%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA
    one grant, 2018 · $150k
  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO
    one grant, 2019 · $100k
  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
3
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

See schedule ouniversity corporation for atmospheric research (ucar), on behalf of, and in cooperation with its member university members, is engaged in the management of long-term atmospheric and related research and educational…

Science & Tech
4
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
5
University of Pittsburgh

The university of pittsburgh, founded in 1787, is one of the oldest institutions of higher education in the united states and one of the nation's top public research universities. for more than two centuries, the university of pittsburgh…

Education
6
Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers Inc

Providing technical leadership for the telecommunications industry and serving its members through excellence in professional development, standards, certification, and information.

—
7
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
8
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago

Achieving international impact through world-class research and education in fundamental computer science and information technology.

Education
9
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
10
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
11
United States Telecom Association

See schedule oustelecom exists to ensure members can compete, grow and thrive to build a world where families, enterprises and communities are connected through the power of broadband.our member companies have committed a considerable…

—
12
The Wireless Foundation

The wireless foundation advances positive social impact fueled by innovative wireless technology in american communities.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgia Tech Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Technology Policy Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 27 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
15/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

New York University: $400,000 · EducationNew York UniversityUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $308,804 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATIONThe Trustees of Princeton University: $260,000 · EducationThe Trustees of Princeton UniversityUniversity of Chicago: $225,000 · EducationUniversity of ChicagoGEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 · EducationGEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INCCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $88,500 · EducationCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONTHE CABLE CENTER: $77,600 · Education+2 more: $25,000 · EducationCarnegie Mellon University: $330,000 · OtherCarnegie Mellon UniversityUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $150,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARACOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: $145,000 · OtherCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYTHE WALTER KAITZ FOUNDATION: $119,500 · OtherTHE WALTER KAITZ FOUNDATIONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO: $100,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT…UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $92,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HIL…REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $50,000 · OtherWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: $43,800 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $40,000 · Other+1 more: $7,500 · OtherGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $130,000 · HealthFOUNDATION FOR MINORITY INTERESTS IN MEDIA INC: $121,540 · Arts & CultureCable TV Pioneers: $25,000 · Community ImprovementWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: $13,500 · Community ImprovementADAPTIVE SPIRIT: $10,500 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $20,000 · PhilanthropyTECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE: $20,000 · InternationalPCS FOR PEOPLE: $5,100 · Human Services
Education$1,474,904Other$1,078,300Health$130,000Arts & Culture$121,540Community Improvement$49,000Philanthropy$20,000International$20,000Human Services$5,100

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNew York University: $400,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $330,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $308,804 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $260,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $225,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $130,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR MINORITY INTERESTS IN MEDIA INC: $121,540 over 7y, 1.3% of budgetTHE WALTER KAITZ FOUNDATION: $119,500 over 6y, 1.9% of budgetGEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $88,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CABLE CENTER: $77,600 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetCable TV Pioneers: $25,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE: $20,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL FOUNDATION INC: $16,650 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: $13,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetADAPTIVE SPIRIT: $10,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $8,350 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetColorado Womens Hall of Fame: $7,500 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetPCS FOR PEOPLE: $5,100 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Ncta - the Internet &…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Ncta - the Internet & Television AssociationDC15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ncta - the Internet & Television Association · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Cable Television Laboratories Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cable Television Laboratories Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 27 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Cable Television Laboratories’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home