HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 John Muir Heal Care Services Presentation O-COD
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE : April 25 , 1983
SUBJECT Oral Communication by Ross Hallberg and Joan Trezek
from John Muir Memorial Hospital
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Joan Trezek , Director of Public Relations .
John Muir Memorial Hospital dated April 15 , 1983
RECOMMENDATION Receive Presentation
FINANCIAL STATEMENT : None
DESCRIPTION In accordance with City Council wishes , arrangements
have been made for representatives from John Muir
Memorial Hospital to make presentation with respect
to health care services being offered .
--- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------
COPIES TO : Joan Trezek , John Muir
ITEM NO . "•
rti � r= � YED
APR 18 1983
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CiTy OF 1J!lr3A xi�1
April 15, 1983
Ms. Kay Keck
Dublin City Council
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Keck:
Thank you for extending an invitation on behalf of the City Council to make a _
presentation at the Council meeting scheduled for Monday, April 25 at 7:30 p.m.
Making the presentation for John Muir Memorial Hospital will be Ross Hallberg,
the director of planning and information services. I may assist Mr. Hallberg with
part of the presentation. At this time, I would ask you to assign 30 minutes on
your agenda for our presentation on John Muir's proposal for health care services
although it may, in fact, require less time.
We look forward to meeting with the City Council on April 25 at the Dublin Library.
Sincerely,
Joan Trezek
Director of Public Relations
JT/lg
A not-for-profit community hospital
1601 Ygnacio Valley Road • Walnut Creek, California 94598 • (415) 939-3000
i AMMINISTRATI7hl BUILDING j
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore. CA 94550
(415) 449-4000
Date: April 15, 1983
RECEIVED
APR 181983
j To: All Members of the Citizens Cable CITY OF Dt:3l,M j
Television Advisory Committee
1 �
i I
From: Lee Horner, City Manager
1
At our last meeting we briefly discussed the proposed compromise that the ;
National League of Cities had apparently agreed upon with respect to the
Goldwater Bill . At that time I had not received any information regard-
! ing any efforts to have the National League of Cities reconsider their
, compromise position. After our meeting I did receive a packet of -
; material that , after reviewing, leads me to feel that perhaps the
! National League of Cities acted rather hastily and prematurely in agree-
ing to the compromise, and that perhaps the compromise was not in the
; best interests of its member cities.
I am enclosing copies of material I have received regarding the National i
,, League of Cities compromise position. I would appreciate your review of
the material and your comments back to me as soon as possible . I may
ask the City Council of Livermore that they oppose the National League
: of Cities compromise . If both the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton agree
. with that position, I would also ask that their City Councils take
similar action.
i
cc: Mr. Rich Ambrose
City Manager, City of Dublin
Mr. Jim Walker I
1a City Manager, City of Pleasanton
i
LH/cm
! Enclosures
r�
I
yl.
•1'r'r'7 i i
tities and counties f®r cable ,
OFFICE OF CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
3939 Civic Center Plaza
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 602-994-27%
March 31, 1983
TO: Memberf Counties for Cable Coalition
FROM: Roy R,
City Nana sdale
NLC/NCTA CABL
You are probably all aware of the compromise reached between the -
National League of Cities and the National Cable Television Association
with regard to pending federal cable legislation.
The City of Scottsdale has joined with a number of cities across the
Country in opposing this compromise, both because of the process by
which the compromise was concluded, as well as some of the specific
terms of the compromise.
A meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, March 24, 1983,
to discuss concerns regarding the proposed compromise. It was the
consensus of that meeting that cities opposed to this compromise
request a special meeting of the NLC Board of Directors at the earliest
opportunity to reconsider their approval of the compromise, granted
on March 6, 1983.
You are invited to join the growing number of cities in opposition
to this compromise, and request that the Board reconsider its action.
For your information, the following items are attached to this letter:
1. List of cities that attended the meeting on March 24; 1983
2. Memo from Tom James, Dallas, Texas, summarizing that meeting
3. Suggested draft letters to NLC Board, including a copy of
the letter sent by Scottsdale
4. List of NLC Officers and Board of Directors
5. March 9, 1983 memo from NLC staff, summarizing the compromise
As always with cable legislation, prompt action is imperative if we
are to bring about change to this compromise agreement. Please do not
hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require any
additional information.
RRP/bas
Attachments
cc: Tom James
RECEI VED
MAR 0 E8'
CITY OF DALLAS
_March 28,_ 1983
T0: - Participants in the March 24, 1983, Meeting'. in. Washington, D.C. ano,
other Interested Cities
SUBJECT: Cab.l:e: Television Legislation, S.66 and NLC Compromise
Representatives of 26 National League of Cities -direct member cities met in
Washington, D.C. on March 24, 1983, to discuss the proposed NLC/NCTA
compromise. A list of the participants in that meeting is attached. All of
the participants were uniform in their deep concern .about the substance of the
proposed compromise and its potential adverse impact on their respective
city's CATV activities. The cities met in offices provided by the Government
of the District of Columbia.
The meeting established the following facts:
A. The present position of the National League of Cities on the compromise
and posssible alternatives.
1. The National League of Cities Staff remains committed to work for the
compromise until otherwise directed by the NLC Board. _
2. The meeting confirmed that there is growing opposition among cities
to the proposed compromise as more cities become aware of the content
and effect of the proposal on their own governmental authority and
frachises.
3. There appear to. be significant differences between the redraft of
5.66 "embodying the compromise" and the compromise itself.
4. The NLC's continuing affirmative and strident advocacy of the
proposed compromise risks a serious split in the municipal
community's efforts to shape federal legislation that can assist '
cities in effectively dealing with local CATV matters.
5. There is reason to believe that the National League of Cities Board
is not fully cognizant of the inadequacy of the redraft of 5.66 as an
embodiment of that proposed compromise.
B. - Legislative posture of the redrafted 5.66.
1. The Senate Commerce Committee is likely to consider S.66 as redrafted
immediately after the Easter recess, possibly as early as the week of
April 4. Many cities plan to strongly object to such fast action.
2. The House Telecommunications Committee staff appears to be
sympathetic to the problems cities may still have with the proposed
compromise. The subcommittee staff remains cognizant that the
National League of Cities has traditionally been the chosen leader of
the cities on this issue. The subcommittee is open to expression of
concern by individual cities about the proposed compromise.
3. Unless the National Leagues of Cities Board is willing to modify the
NLC's present endorsement of the proposed compromise, or unless there
is a strong separate effort by numerous cities to slow down the
legislative process, Congress is likely to complete action very
quickly on 5.66, possibly as early as this fall.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES CITY HALL DALLAS,TEXAS 75201 TELEPHONE 214/570-3157 ,
The meeting partici, ats agreed upon -the following , .ions and recommendations
to work toward two immediate goals.
1. As many cities as possible should ask the individual National League
of Cities Board members to reconsider their endorsement of the
proposed compromise. Enclosed is a draft letter many city officials
will be sending to all NLC -Board members._ You should consider asking
your Mayor, council members- and other appropriate officials to send
similar letters. A list of the National League of Cities Board and .
their addresses is enclosed. It is important that the NLC Board
realize the depth and strength of feelings among the member cities on
this issue.
2. Cities should assist the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in the efforts to
slow down Congressional action on the proposed compromise until
cities have a reasonable chance to consider its effects and seek
appropriate changes.
a. Len Simon, representative of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
informed the group that the Conference is willing to assist in
this matter. Mayors should write the U.S. Conference commending
its willingness to assist and asking them to intervene as
appropriate on Capitol Hill.
b. Each City should send the U.S. Conference an analysis of how the
proposed compromise will affect it.
C. City officials should meet with respective Memoers of Congress
and Senators while they are home over the Easter holiday recess,
March 26 to April 4.
d. City officials should contact the staff of their respective _
House and Senate representatives in Washington, D.C. to ask
their cooperation in getting more time to analyze how the
compromise effects cities.
3. The .group agreed to meet again. All cities able to send a
representative should do so on April 21 to discuss any modification
in the League's position that may have occurred by that time and to
discuss further steps to turn their deep concern into effective
action on Capitol Hill. (At the meeting, April 20 was agreed upon
but April -21 would be better for representives who will be attending
a meeting at the ICMA on April 22 and 23) .
It is suggested that you enlist the support of your State Municipal League as
well as other. . cities in your_ region. Please feel free to use_ all of this
information in anyway you choose.
Also, you may want to include specific concerns in your letter to the NLC
Board and . in your communications with your Senators and Memoers of Congress
such as Rita Stull has incorporated in the Cincinnati letter (attached).
I am sending this letter as the interim Chairman. The City of Dallas will
serve temporarily as the clearinghouse for information (along with Cincinnati)
among cities on this problem. Please keep us informed of your actions.
Sincerely,
homas m
Directo onsumer Services
City of Dallas
ds
attachments (3)
SCOr
fa
Ar rt
x x
Office of the Mayor and City Council
March 31, 1983
The Honorable Charles Royer ,
Mayor of Seattle
600 Fourth .Avenue
Seattle, Washington 95110
Dear Mayor,Royer:
The purpose of this letter is to make you aware of Scottsdale's
significant concerns regarding the "compromise" between the National
League of Cities and the National Cable Television Association.
Because there is every reason to believe that the National League of -
Cities Board did not receive a full explanation of the compranise,
or a full report of the discussion of the NLC Task Force on Tele-
communicattons the day previously, the Board should be given an
opportunity to reconsider its previous approval .
Therefore, the City of Scottsdale requests that a special meeting of
the NLC Board of Directors be held at the earliest possible opportunity
to reconsider the position taken.by the Board on March 6, 1983, with
respect to the proposed compromise. The City of Scottsdale would
appreciate the opportunity to express our views at the special meeting
of the Board..
As you may be aware, prompt action is imperative given the fact that
Congress may take action on federal cable legislation within the next
fear weeks.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. : I would appreciate
a reply to this request at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely,
Herbert R. Drinkwater
Mayor
HRD/bas
3939 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA ■ SCOTfSDALE,ARIZONA 95251 ■ PHONE(602)994-2521
Suggested Letter to be Addressed to National League Of Cities (NLC) Officers,
Board of Directors (See attached list)
On March 24, 1983, representatives from a considerable number of member cities
of the NLC (see attached list) met to discuss their concerns regarding the
proposed compromise on federal cable television legislation agreed to by the
NLC and -The National Cable Television Association. As a city represented at
that meeting, we hereby request that a special meeting of the NLC Board of -
Directors be held. to reconsider the position taken by the Board on March 6,
1983, with respect to the proposed compromise.
Given the fact that Congress may take action on federal cable legislation
within the next few weeks, or possibly even days, a special meeting should be
held as soon as possible. We request that you let us know your reaction to
this request for a special meeting by April 8, 1983.
Additionally, we would like to have the opportunity to express our views and
concerns as the special meeting of the Board to reconsider the proposed
compromise.
We hope that you will give this request your most serious consideration.
Sincerely
Mayor
DRAFT 3/25/83
The Honorable Charles Royer
President, National League of Cities and
The National League of Cities Board of Directors
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Mayor Royer and NLC Board of Directors:
The "Compromise Proposal On Federal Legislation" negotiated by the National
League of Cities (NLC) and the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) ,
while an improvement on S.66 is still seriously flawed. Most of the provisions
in Cincinnati 's contract would be changed. Our greatest concern is the premption
of control of our freely negotiated franchise. An analysis of the affect of this
compromise on our franchise .is attached for your review.
On March 24, 1983, Cincinnati participated in a special meeting to discuss the
compromise in Washington, D.C. Representatives from a considerable number of
NLC member cities were present (see attached list) to voice their serious con-
cerns. -
Cincinnati joins with these cities in requesting the following: (1 ),,NLC Board
reconsider its decision to support this compromise as it does not protect
cities ' or the public's interests; (2) that the NLC Board actively seek time
from all appropriate Congressional committees and sub-committees to allow for
responses from NLC member cities on federal cable legislation; (3) that the
NLC solicit through a special mailing responses from all member cities to its
compromise proposal; (4) -that if after receiving and reviewing member cities '
responses to the compromise, it is determined that there is a need for federal
cable legislation, .NLC should actively sponsor and support legislation which
protects the public interest, reflects the member cities ' rights; and ensures
that the full range of services will be made available to subscribers on
economically viable broadband communications systems.
We are prepared to meet with the NLC and assist in implementing the foregoing
requests and recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Sylvester Murray
City Manager
cc: Alan Beals
Cynthia Pols o
Cities on attached list
Notional 1301 PennsylvaniaAverue NW. officers:
Laague Washington,D.C. President
�D p Charles Royer
--UU�J 11111111 Of 20004 Mayor,Seattle,Washington
Cities (2M)62&_3000 first Nce President
March 9, 1983 Cade:NLCmES George Latimer
Mayor,St.Paul,Minnesota
Second Vice President
George V Voinovich
Mayor.Cleveland,Ohio
immediate Past President
Ferd L Harrison
Mayor,Scotland Neck,North Carolina
To: NATOA Members Executive Director
Alan Beals
From: Cynthia Pols, Legislative Counsel
Subject: Compromise Proposal on Feder.al Cable . Legislation
On March 6, 1983 , the Board of Directors of the National League
of Cities approved a compromise proposal on federal cable legis-
lation. The Board of Directors of the National Cable Television
Association is expected to act on the proposal on March 22.
Enclosed is a summary of the proposal.
While the NLC Board has approved the major principles of the com-
promise, the specific provisions of the agreement must be refined
and clarified and legislative language must be developed. We are
in the process of accepting and considering suggestions from a
wide range of sources. . NATOA members are uniquely qualified to
provide assistance in several areas.
As with any project as sweeping as this one, it is likely that
the proposal may not adequately deal with particular local cir-
cumstances. To the extent that you can identify any areas in
which your city' s franchise may be inadvertently affected by the
proposal, we would be most grateful. A second area of concern is
that the language of the proposal may be vague, ambiguous, or
.otherwise inappropriate.
We are prepared to revise the proposal . to accommodate whatever
changes may be necessary. A fundamental concern for NLC in this
process is ensuring that local franchising arrangements are not
unnecessarily disrupted.
We look forward to receiving any comments or suggestions you may
have by March 25. Because Senator Barry Goldwater is anxious to
move cable legislation in the near future, it is necessary that
development of this proposal be completed as soon as possible.
RECEI'I '= C'
MAR
Pool Prnldenta:Tom Bradley,Mayor.Los Angeles,California•Wllllam H,Hudnut,III,Mayor,Indianapolis,Indiana•Henry W.Molar,Mayor.Milwaukee.Wisconsin-Tom Moody,Mayor.Columbus.
Ohio•Jesafe M.Rattley,Councilwoman.Newport News.Virginia•John p Rousakln,Mayor.Savannah.Georgia•Directors:John B.Andrews,Executive Director.New Hampsrnre Muniabal
Association•Richard Arrington,Jr.,Maya.Birmingham,Alabama•Marlon S.Bsrry,Jr.,Mayor,Washington,D.C.•Carol Bellamy,Council President.New York.New York•Richard S.Callpulrl,
Mayor,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania-David Cunningham.Council Member.Los An CaI'lorn,a-John P Franklin,Vice Mayor,Chattanooga,Tennessee•William F.Fulglnlll,Executive Director.New
Mexico Municipal League•Karen M.Graven,Commissioner.Salina.Kansas•Edwin L.Griffin,Jr.,Executive Director,Kentucky Municipal League-Jonathan B.Howes,Council Member,Chapel Hill.North Carolina•Charlo*Hoyt,Alderman.MrnneapoLs.Minnesota•Robert M.Isaac,Mayor,Colorado Springs.Colorado•George M.Israel,111,Mayor.Macon,Georgia•Luther Jones.Maya.Corpus
C.S11,Texas•Myra Jones,Vice Mayor.Little Rock.Arkansas•Peter C.Knuoson,Maya,Brigham City.Utah•Ted Lehno,Council Member,Fairbanks.Alaska•Christopher G.Lockwood,Executive
Director.Mane Municipal Association•Bob Martinez,Maya.Tampa.Florida•E.A.Mosher,Executive Director,League of Kansas Municipalities•Jack Nelson,Mayor,Beaverton.Oregon•C.David
Nuessen,Mayor.Oumcy,Illinois•Kevin O'Connor,Aderman,Milwaukee.Wisconsin•Martin L.Peterson,Executive Dsrecta.Association of Idaho Cities•Michael J.Guinn,Executive Director.Indiana
Association of Cities and Towns•Elaine Szymonisk,Council Member,Des Manes,lava•Joseph W.Walsh,Maya.Warwick,Rhode Island•Iola M.Williams,Vice Maya.San Jose,Cahlorroa
TDomes D.Wingerd,Maya.Greenwood,South Carolina
Nlydonel 1301 Pwmyfvw i Avervie NW Officers:
League WashkVW,D.C. President
LTII I fU� 0 Ul I I f L 1 Cranes Royer
at 20pD4 Maya,Seance.Washington
CKIM (202)626-31M First Nce President
Cable:NLCMES age Lain*,
March 9, 1983 Maya.St Pain,M nnesota
Second Nce President
George V Volnov ch
Maya.Cleveland,Ohio
SUMMARY OF PROVISION OF .COMPROMISE Mnn»diare Past Resident
Ford L.Harrison
ON FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION mayor.Sconand Neck.North Carolina
Executive Director
Nan Beals
JURISDICTION
State or local jurisdiction. A state or locality has
jurisdiction in those areas -which are not related to
interstate commerce or have not been preempted by this
legislation or other provisions of federal law. Under
this authority, a state or locality which has franchising
or similar authority under state law may: (1) grant one
or more cable franchises or similar authorizations for _
the construction and operation of a cable system or sys-
tems within its jurisdiction; (2) establish minimum
qualifications for applicants; (3) establish reporting
requirements and customer complaint procedures; and (4) -
enforce the terms and conditions of franchises.
A cable franchise may establish specific terms and con-
ditions for the construction and operation of a cable
system in areas such as: (1) review and/or approval of
operator-requested transfers of ownership; (2) duration
of the franchise; (3) termination of a franchise for
cause; (4) construction schedules; (5) delineation of the -
franchise area; (6) extension of service requirements;
(7) insurance, bonding, and indemnification requirements;
(8) restoration of the public rights-of-way; and (9)
continuity of service requirements.
Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Government may exer-
cise authority to the extent authorized by this legis-
lation and has exclusive jurisdiction over: (1) privacy;
(2) crossownership restrictions; (3) comoensati'o n for
access to property; and (4) tP�hn'cal�t arr3�. The
Federal Government may not exercise jurisdiction in other
areas unless authorized by the legislation or other pro-
visions of federal law.
Concurrent jurisdiction. A state or local franchising
authority may exercise authority provided that its
actions are consistent with federal restrictions or
requirements in the following areas: (1) access; (2) rate
regulation; (3) franchise fees; (4) state or local owner-
ship of cable systems; (5) requirements for the -provision
of cable services and cable system facilities; (6)
renewal or extension of a cable franchise; (7) pole
attachment fees; (8) restraints on services offered by a
cable operator; and (9) theft of service. The Federal
Page 2
Government may exercise authority in order to ensure that
actions taken by a state or locality in these areas are
consistent with federal restrictions or requirements or
to otherwise implement specific federal requirements or
restrictions in these areas.
CABLE SYSTEMS
Definition of a cable system. A cable system means a
system over which broadband service is provided to sub-
scribers by means of a closed transmission medium. -That
term, however, does not include a system used only . for
the retransmission of television signals or operated
entirely on a common carrier basis. No governmental
entity may impose common carrier or utility status on a
cable system except to the extent that basic telephone
service is provided over such system.
STATE OR LOCAL OWNERSHIP
Limitations on government control of programming. The -
ownership of cable systems by a state or locality shall
not be explicitly limited. A state or locality which
owns a cable system, however, shall be prohibited from
controlling the content of any programming other than
government access programming provided over such a
system.
To .avoid government control of programming, a state or
locality which owns a cable system must establish an
independent board or agency with complete authority to
make programming decisions or authorize a cable operator
or management firm under a long-term contract or similar
arrangement to manage the system. .A board or agency
shall be considered independent only if it does not
include any members who hold local office (or state
office in the case of a state-owned system) and is self-
perpetuating.
Acquisition of a cable system' by a cable franchising
authority. The acquisition of a cable . system by a state
or locality under a buy back provision of a cable fran-
chise or a forced sale of the system to a third party on
the expiration of a franchise shall be upon payment of no
less than fair market value to be determined by
arbitration.
Page 3
A state or local franchising authority which exercises a
right under a cable franchise to terminate a franchise
for material breach of the franchise and to acquire the
system must provide the cable operator with notice of the
breach and a reasonable opportunity to cure that breach.
. Upon compliance with these and other due process require-
ments, the cable system may be acquired upon payment of
an amount determined by a court of general jurisdiction.
OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS
Ownership by a television broadcast station owner or
operator. The ownership of cable systems by other media
interests shall not be restricted except to the extent
specifically authorized by the legislation. The FCC may
restrict the ownership and/or operation of cable systems _
by the owner of a television broadcast station in the
area served by that station if concentration of media
control in that area would result from such ownership.
Foreign ownership. The ownership of cable systems by
foreign-owned companies shall not be explicitly limited.
Ownership by nonmedia interests. The ownership of cable
systems by other interests shall not be explicitly
limited. However, the FCC' s authority to impose owner-
ship restrictions under Title II of the Communicatons Act
of 1934 shall not be affected by this legislation.
ACCESS TO PROPERTY
Right of property occupant to receive cable service. A
property owner may not interfere with the installation of
any cable system facility which is necessary in order for
a legal occupant of property to receive cable service. A C►
property owner, however, may require that the appearance
of the property and the safety of other persons not be \"
adversely affected as a result of' the -installation or
removal of such facilities. In addition, a property
owner may require the cable operator and the subscriber
to pay the full costs of installing and removing those
facilities, but may not charge discriminatory rents or
other fees to a legal occupant of that property solely
for the reason that he receives cable service.
Page 4
Compensation to property owner. The FCC shall establish
an amount which constitutes just and reasonable compensa-
tion for the installation of cable system facilities on
property, taking into account the following factors: .(1)
the extent to which the property is physically occupied
by the facilities; (2) potential long-term damage to- the
property; (3) limitations on the property owner's ability
to use the property for other purposes; and (4) the
enhancement of the property' s value as a result of the
availability of cable service.
CABLE SERVICES .AND CABLE SYSTEM FACILITIES
Programming and services. A cable franchising authority
may require the provision of government access program-
ming and services in the Request for Proposals or other-
wise as a condition of the franchise. A cable operator
may be required to provide other programming and services
if particular programming and services were voluntarily -
offered by the cable operator in its proposal or other-
wise and that proposal or other offer was incorporated
into the franchise or related authorization. JC2rhe cable
operator, however, cannot be required by a franchise or
otherwise to .place or retain particular programming and
services in any particular category of service other than
basic service
A cable operator may remove or otherwise not provide a
particular service specified in the franchise or related
authorization in any case in which there has been a
significant ch a in circ=stancea_ since the _gable
operator' s offer. Such a change in circumstances may
nclu e, but is not limited to, any case in which a
service is not available or is available on terms which
are substantially more burdensome than those prevailing
on the date of the cable operator's offer. A cable
operator which removes or does not provide a particular
service required by the franchise shall make a reasonable
effort to provide substantially the same mix of services
as was proposed.
The content of programming provided over a cable system
shall not be subject to regulation except to the extent
that the provision of particular programming is required
by a franchise or related authorization. A state or
locality, however, may exercise any police power
allowable under the First Amendment.
Page 5
Facility requirements. A cable franchising authority may
require the construction and provision of cable system
facilities and the provision of other cable-related
equipment used to provide cable services in the Request
for Proposals or otherwise as a condition of the fran-
chise. A cable operator may be required to construct and
provide particular cable system facilities and to provide
other cable-related equipment if such requirements are
specified in . the franchise. A cable franchise may not
require the provision of particular facilities or cable-
related equipment which are not used for or related to
the provision of a cable service.
Interconnection of cable systems. A state or locality
may require the interconnection of cable systems provided
that such a requirement is reasonable.
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
FCC authority. The FCC shall retain jurisdiction to
establish technical standards which may be exceeded by
the terms of a franchise upon a waiver from the FCC.
RATE REGULATION
Authority to regulate rates. A cable franchising autho-
rity may regulate or restrict rates or fees for the fol-
lowing: (1) provision of basic service to subscribers;
(2) installation and/or rental of equipment which is
necessary for the provision of basic service to sub-
scribers; (3) .installation and/or rental of equipment
which facilitates the reception of cable service by
handicapped subscribers; and (4) use of system capacity
by PEG access users. The regulation or restriction of
other rates and fees by contract or any other means is
prohibited.
Basic service. Basic service shall include local broad-
cast signals, public, educational, and governmental
access channels and any other service voluntarily offered
by the cable operator as basic service and specified in
the cable franchise or related authorization.
The cable operator must provide any service included in
basic service during the term of the franchise unless
there has been a significant change in circumstances.
Such a change in circumstances may include, but is not
Page 6
limited to any case in which a service is not available
or is available on terms and conditions which -are sub-
stantially more burdensome than on the date of the cable
operator' s offer. A cable operator which does not pro-
vide or removes a service included in basic service under
the franchise or related authorization shall make a
reasonable effort to provide substantially the same mix
of services included in basic service under the franchise
orrelated authorization. In addition, a cable operator
may remove any service from basic service with the
approval of the franchising authority.
Increases in rates and fees. . Any subscriber rate or fee _
restricted or subject to regulation may be increased
annually by 5 percent or the increase in the Consumer
Price Index for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area for the prior 12 months on 30 days notice to sub-
scribers and the cable franchising authority, whichever
is greater. When an automatic increase is not taken in a -
particular year, it may be carried over for use in a sub-
sequent year or years, but must be used within the 3
year period following the year in which it was -
accumulated.
If a franchising authority fails to act on a request for
any additional increase in rates or fees within the 90
day period following receipt of such request, the cable
operator may implement the proposed increase
without approval of the franchising authority.
Deregulation of rates for basic service. . The rates for
basic service may be subject to rate regulation if the
franchise area is served by fewer than four Grade B com-
mercial television broadcast stations (i.e. , three net-
work affiliates and one independent) . In any franchise
area served by four or more of such stations providing
service of an adequate quality throughout the franchise
area, the rates for basic service shall be deregulated .
A cable franchising authority, however, may continue to
regulate the rates for basic service under any franchise
in effect on the date of enactment or for which a Request
for Proposals has been issued prior to _the date of .enact-
ment until the end of the 5 year period following the
date of enactment or the date of expiration of one half
of the remaining life of the franchise on the date of
enactment, whichever is later.
User rates. A franchising authority may regulate or
restrict the rates charged for the use of system capacity
set aside for PEG access users.
Page 7
ACCESS
Access set asides. The set aside of a portion of system
capacity for use by PEG and/or third party access users
may be established in a cable franchise by agreement
between the cable operator and the franchising authority.
In any case in which system capacity is set aside for
access : users, the cable franchise shall establish
policies and provide for rules and procedures for the use
of that set aside 'capacity. , Access set asides in
addition to those 'specified in the cable franchise may
not be established by the franchising authority or any
other governmental entity.
A cable operator may use unused access capacity for its
own purposes, but shall relinquish the requisite capacity _
upon a determination by the cable franchising authority
that there is demand by access users for such capacity.
FRANCHISE FEES
Ceiling on franchise fees. A franchise fee of 5 percent
may be imposed on the gross revenues from the operation
of a cable system provided such fee is specified in the
franchise. The cable operator may designate on the bill
as a specific item the portion of charges which repre-
sents the franchise fee. A cable operator may,_arss
through the amount of any franchise fee increase
re`su ting from enactment 'of this legislation to
subscribers as a franchise fee, not a service charge.
In any case in which a franchise fee is reduced as a
result of this change, the service charges shall be
reduced by an equivalent amount.
FRANCHISE RENEWALS AND EXTENSIONS
Procedures. A cable franchising authority may not accept
any other application or take any action with respect to
a potential applicant until it has completed action on
the incumbent' s application in accordance with the
requirements of the proposed legislation. An incumbent
cable operator must submit an application for renewal 24
months prior to the scheduled expiration date of a cable
franchise or within 60 days of the proposed legislation' s
date of enactment for any franchise scheduled to expire
during the 24 month period following that date of
enactment.
Page 8
In any case in which a cable franchising authority does
not act on an application for renewal of a cable fran-
chise which is scheduled to expire during the 24 month
period following the legisltaion' s date of enactment
prior to the scheduled expiration date of that franchise,
it must extend the franchise until it completes action on
.that application under the requirements -of this
legislation.
During .the 90 day period following receipt of the appli-
cation, the cable franchising authority must conduct pro-
ceedings such as hearings to consider that application.
During the 30 day period following completion of those
proceedings, the cable franchising authority must com-
mence good faith negotiations with the incumbent cable
operator for the purpose of establishing terms and con-
ditions for the renewal of that franchise.
The cable franchising authority must make a decision on
an application for renewal or extension no later than 12 -
months after the receipt of that application. A decision
to deny an application for renewal or extension, however,
shall not be made within the 7 month period following
receipt of the application. A cable franchising autho
rity which denies an application for renewal must issue a
detailed statement outlining the basis for denial. A
cable franchising authority may not solicit or consider
proposals from other applicants until this statement has
been issued.
Renewal test. A franchising authority may deny an appli-
cation for renewal if it finds that: (1) there has been a
material change in the legal, technical or financial
qualifications of the incumbent that would substantially
impair his ability to provide the proposed services and
facilities; (2) the incumbent failed to comply with the
provisions of applicable law or the material terms of the
franchise; (3) the signal quality which is within the
basic operator' s control did not meet FCC technical
standards; (4) the cable system facilities or the set
aside of system capacity for government access users
proposed by the incumbent are not reasonable in light of
future community need for and cost of such facilities or
set aside; or (5) the proposals contained in the
incumbent' s application are not otherwise reasonable. A
cable operator shall have a reasonable expectation of
renewal and may appeal a denial of a renewal or failure
to act on an application to a court of general
jurisdiction.
Page 9
PRIVACY
Personally identifiable information. Personally identifi-
able information with respect to a cable subscriber.' may
be collected or disclosed if such information is neces-
sary to provide service to a subscriber, to facilitate
bill collection or to monitor or prevent unauthorized
reception of cable service. Further disclosure of infor-
mation collected for such purposes is allowed if the sub-
scriber receives written notice of the planned disclosure
and his right to prevent such disclosure.
No -,other personally identifiable information may be col-
lected or disclosed unless collection or disclosure of
such information has been authorized in writing by a -
cable subscriber or is required by a court order. Any
personally identifiable information which is collected
shall be destroyed when no longer usable for the purpose _
for which it was collected.
Monitoring of subscriber premises. No equipment may be
installed on the premises of a subscriber for visual
monitoring of those premises or for listening in on con-
versations or related activities on those premises
without written authorization of the subscriber.
THEFT OF SERVICE
Prohibition. The unauthorized reception of broadband
service and the aiding or abetting of such reception are
prohibited by federal law. A state or locality may also
adopt and enforce restrictions on theft of service.
Enforcement. Temporary and final injunctions may be
issued to prevent theft of service. Actual or statutory
damages may be recovered by an aggrieved party and a
violator may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment.
RESTRAINTS ON SERVICE OFFERED BY A CABLE OPERATOR
Entry into new businesses. A cable operator may engage
in any business which is incidental to the operation of a
cable system (e.g. , the sale and/or repair of television
sets and cable-related equipment) or is unrelated to the
operation of a cable system. A state or locality or a
cable franchise may not restrict or prohibit entry into a
particular business or establish conditions on entry into
a particular business except to the extent that such
� s
Page 10
restrictions or conditions would apply to any other per-
son engaged in that business activity within the juris-
diction.
POLE ATTACHMENT FEES
Coverage. The fees charged for the attachment of cable
lines to poles 'or the placement of cable lines in ducts
which 'are owned by publicly-owned or cooperatively-
organized utilities shall be - subject to regulation under
the federal pole law. A state which asserts jurisdiction
over pole attachment fees under the federal pole law
shall establish and enforce regulatory requirements which
ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions for pole .
attachment fees are just and reasonable.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Date of enactment. The provisions of the legislation
shall take effect on the date of . enactment. Any fran-
chise in effect in the date of enactment must be
brought into compliance with the requirements of the
legislation within one year of the legislation' s date of
enactment or by the franchise' s expiration date, which-
ever is earlier.
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Federal Trade Commission. The .Federal Trade Commission
shall, within 6 months of the legislation's date of
enactment, conduct a study of existing and potential
cable-related consumer issues, file a report with
Congress identifying any particular problems, and make
recommendations to Congress for any .federal legislation
that it may deem appropriate.
SAC RAC , ENTO M ETR O P ` , ITAN
Folsom. able `°
Sacramento e l ev i s i o n APR
. 11 Galt ommission i1.1�l �cr�� ;ce
a
'------
a� L
SUITE 2500, 700 'H1 ST., SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 440-6661 f}j & M1TH
�'�E'X F,C�U T`V�IbIRELTOR
April 7, 1983
Dear Mayor:
; Pending federal legislation may threaten to erode the ability of .your City Council to
negotiate and enforce cable television franchises. The Board of Directors of the
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission has authorized its staff to ac-
tively work with other cities to defeat S.66, the Goldwater Bill , which seeks to usurp
local authority over cable television.
The Board of the National League of Cities recently approved compromise language for
S.66.' Many cities feel as we do, that this compromise is not in the best interest of
cable subscribers. Member cities of the NLC were not consulted prior to the approval
of this compromise.
In a hastily called meeting in Washington D.C. , over 25 cities met to discuss the NLC
compromise. A second meeting of cities is scheduled for April 20th in Washington D.C.
It is critical that cities join together in opposition to the NLC compromise. If,
after conducing your own analysis, you wish to express your opposition, the following
steps are .recommended:
1 ) Adopt a Resolution similar to the attached sample opposing the NLC compromise
and articulating your specific concerns with S.66 and the compromise language.
Send copies of this Resolution to the NLC, the League of California Cities,
the Senate and House Communication Sub-Committees, and your congressional dele-
gation. Please forward copies of your approved Resolutions to my office.
2) Attend a meeting in Los Angeles on April 22nd to discuss developments in Wash-
ington and further action California cities and the League of California Cities
could take. This meeting is being coordinated by Michael Stover, Assistant
City Manager for Lakewood, and will take place in the City of El Segundo.
Directions are attached.
The Board of the League of California Cities is meeting on April 29th and will be dis-
cussing S.66 and the NLC compromise. It is important that the Board hear from member
cities regarding the potential impact of federal cable deregulation.
If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at (916) 440-6661
or Michael Stover at (213) 866-9771 ext. 214.
Sincerely,
SPERANZA AVRAM, able Coordinator
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable
Television Commission
SA:ab
Attachments
Multichannel News—April 4,1983
Cities Meet T® Oppose misedisctorThomas Dallas men. 'National Cable Television opposing ranged from those
chise director Thomas James. 'Association,71e agreement be opposing specific provisions of
Among the cities represented tween the two groups on the coo- the compromise to those oppos-
COmprOmise Cable gill were New York; ale, Denver, over bl issue of local control Crag the manner a which the
Portland, Scottsdale, Denver, over cable has been considered compromise was reached and an-
. .: Sacramento,-Chicago. Pitta- key to passage of cable.legisla- pounced to the NLC member-
By Lucy Huffman to ask the League to revise its burgh, Cincinnati, Miami and tion in Congress. The_NLC- ship to those against the very
Yvashington Bureau Chief position. theDistrictof Columbia.Others NCTA compromise has been en- notion of compromise itself.
WASHINGTON. D.C.—In At least half of the city offi- later indicating an inclination to dorsed by Sen.Barry Goldwater Issues that a to be
what could eventually lead to a lisle—all but one of whom were join the dissenters include New (R-AZ)and introduced as a new appeared
professional cable officers hired Orleans,St.Louis and Detroit. bill,but further progress of the nam�ynclud thorny,according to Mr.
• break with the National League p James,included subscriber rate
of Cities,representatives of more by cities to oversee local cable The cities met in opposition to measure has been stalled until deregulation and provisions
than 25 cities met hen Mar.24 operations—were speaking for the compromise on cable regula- mid-Apr. allowing cable operators to ex-
their mayors opposition to a corn- their mayors against the com- tion adopted in early Mar.by the .According to city officials at-
to panel into other lines of business,
promise on cable legislation and promise, according to the NLC board of directors and the tending the one-day session, particularly TV set sales Local
officials were also concerned they
will be unable to enforce existing
cable franchises,and they dLc.U-
--
House Subcommittee on Telecommunka- Minority Member,2338 RHOB,225-5361 tel- l elf 'was "ewes
boas,Consumer Protection,and Finance— com.:Peter Lefkin,appts.:Betty Blackshaw. '.• !'
is 98W Congress J Carlos J-Moorehead,(R-CA),2346RHOB. ing pre-emption ' of their
225-4176,telcom.:Joy Stevens,appts-:Barbara ( authority.''
Reynolds !
"This compromise excuses
Timothy E. Wirth (D-CO), Chairman: Thomas J.Tauke,(R-IA),319 CHOB,225- 1 cable operators from their prom-
- 2454 RHOB,225-2161,appts.:Gail teach 2911,telcom-:Ed Senn,appis.:Gladys Hendrix ises and allows them to renege,"
James H. Scherer,(D-NY).2402 RHOB, ' James T.Broyhill,(R-NC),Ex Officio,2340 said Mr.James. .
225-5471 telcom.:Greg Babyak,appts.:Gail RHOB, 225-2576, telcom.: Susan Asmus, '
Kelly appts.:Lynn Clayton Mr. James said the city
Edward J.Markey,if)-MA).403 CHOB, -Michael-oxky,(R-0H), 1108 LHOB,225- representatives left the meeting
225-2836 telcom.: Ron Lain:'appts.: Nancy 2676 telcom.:Peter Alexander,appts.:Debbie intent on getting their city coon--
O'Malley Dimeling.
r; oils and elected officials to write
At Swift,(D-WA),..1502 LHOB,225-2605 letters to the NLC board of direc-
m
telco .: Scott Johnson, appts.: Mickey Majority Staff,Room B-331 RHOB,225-9304
Hombacher David Aylward—Chief Counsel,Staff Di- tors calling for special recon-
Henry Waxman,(D-CA),2418 RHOB,225-- rector sideration of the compromise.Mr.
2976 telcom.:Phil Schiliro,appts.:Nora Lucey David Leach—Telecommunications Policy James said the group has asked
Cardiss Collins,(D-IL),2438 RHOB,225- Analyst for a response by Apr.8 but the
5006 telcom.: Denise Wilson, appts.:-Dottie Patty Shwayder—Telecommunications Pot- deadline is not"hard and fast"
Ross • ` ' icy Analyst I
John D.Dingell,(D-MI).E
• x Officio,2221 Bob Maher—Telecommunications Policy NLC legislative director Cyn-
RHOB, 2254071 telcom.:Tom Ryan,appt.: Analyst - thia Poll,who helped put together
Yom.^_a My CRr7 M _l a N!r rCT?agreement aid M-mc
Jim,Bales,(D-CA), 1632 LHOB.225-5452 Scott Raf7erte�-Staff Counsel the &tti-mrnpranise group "is '
telcom.:Tim Scully,appts.:Gail Mukaihata. Dnrima Chlurnecky—Economic ' creating substantial problems for
John Bt yant,(D-TX),506 CHOB,225-2231 Tom Rogers—Staff Counsel 5 P but she added that so far
telcom.:Barbara Crapa Howard Symons—Staff Counsel
Albert Gore, (D-TN), 1131 LHOB,:225- Mary McKenna--Office Manager NLC is not ready to change its
4231 telcom.:Larry Harrington,appts.:Melinda Nancy McNary—Policy Analyst position. The leagues board of
Mousield• Mattie Jones--Staff Assistant directors has yet to hear much of-
Matthew J. Rinaldo, (R-NJ), Ranking Tom Brady—Staff Assistant ficial opposition from elected city
officials or city council members,
said Ms.Pots,but she did not nile
Roberta Wfaer—Press Secretary Wendell Ford,(D-KY), 173A'RSOB,224 out the possibility that some
Sarah Bourne—Star(Assistant, 4343,telcom.:Martha Maloney change could occur later,
Kathy Bump—Staff Assistant Slade Gordon, (R-WA), 513 HSOB, 224-
Katherine Fonte—Staff Assistant 2621,telcom.:Connie Thumma At least one official at the
Pat Teagarden—Staff Assistant Nancy Kassenbsum, (R-KA),302 RSOB, meeting would not rule out the
telcom.:and appts.:Chuck Doyle,224-4774 poss'blity that the cities may even-
Minority Staff,Room 2312 RHOB,215-2963 tually break with the NLC if the
Rodney Joyce—Associate Minority Coun- Majerrty Staff,Roam 130 RS08,224.8144 League refuses to alter its posi-
sel--Consumer Issues I wir f White—Senior Counsel tion. "These cities want
Cec1I Srodes—Associate Minority Counsel Riley Temple—Communications Counsel desperately to work with the
Chris Coursen—Assistant Communications y
CHOB—Cannon House Office Building Counsel NLC," said the official, who
• - LHOB—Longworth House Office Building Mary Ann McRae--Secretary noted that NLC has a proven
RHOS—Rayburn House Office Building track record in dealing with cable
House Document Room:225-3456: Minority Staff,Room 554 DSOB,224-0411 matters on behalf of cities."But
Ralph B. Everett---Chief Counsel & Staff if the League says no,"added the
Director.224-0411 official,:'then they 11 go in another
Senate Subcommittee on Communications Elizabeth Tankersly—Senior Counsel,224-
direction."
Barry Goldwater,(R-AZ),_Chairmen,353 0411
RSOB, 224-2235,telcom.:Ward White(224- . Amy Von Durant—Consumer Issues,224- Another avenue of support
8144),Chris Courxn(224-8144),Riley Temple 9345 could be the U.S.Conference of
Larry Pressler, (R-SD). 415 RSOB, 224- Tom Cohert—Communication Issues, 224- Mayors,a group which sent ex-
5842, telcom.: Mary Pat Bierle,appts.: Beth 9341
Posey Loretta,Dunn—L'onsunxr Trade Issues, Simon assistant city mr i g.
Ted Stevens,(R-AK),147 RSOB,224-3004. 224-0742 I Simon to attend the city meeting.
telcom.:Mark Schneider,appts.:Carol Hess "The Conference of Mayors was
Ernest Hollings,(D-SC).Ranking Minority not part of the negotiations;con
Member, 125 RSOB,224-6121,telcom.:Tom RSOB—Russell Senate Office Building sequently its impossible to sup-
Cahen(224-0411),appts.:Mary Hughes - DSOB—Dirkxn Senate Office Building port the agreement at this time,"
Daniel Inouye, (D-HI), 722 HSOB, 224- HSOB—Han Senate Office Building said Mr.Simon,adding that it is
3934, telecom.: John Hardy, appts.: Sally Senate Document Room—B-HSOB,224-7701 "rare"that the two groups differ
Watanabe ■
- on policy matters.
- .. Mr. Simon said the League
—— - - "should be commended"for at-
tempting negotiations, but he
added that that Conference of
' Mayors will determine its own
i position during its annual meeting
in June.0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING OPPOSITION
TO LANGUAGE ENTITLED "COMPROMISE BETWEEN NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF CITIES AND NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION
ASSOCIATION ON FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION" .
WHEREAS, under the existing state law, the governing body of a
city, county, or city and county may grant a cable television franchise; and
WHEREAS , the City (or County) of has
issued (will issue) - a franchise to a cable operator to provide .cable services;
WHEREAS , on March 4,. 1983, the National League of. Cities and the
National Cable Television Association agreed to compromise language regarding
federal cable legislation which substantially impacts said franchise agree-
ment; and
WHEREAS , the :Board of the National League of Cities approved -this
language on March 6 , 1983; and
WHEREAS , the Board of the National League of Cities did not con-
sult with member cities before approving said compromise language; and
WHEREAS , specific provisions in said compromise language are in
direct conflict with local laws which have been enacted by the City of
(County of)
1) The definition of concurrent jurisdiction between local
franchising authorities and the federal government removes
the areas of access, service and facility requirements,
renewal or extension of franchises , among the other areas
from exclusive local jurisdiction.
2) Cable operator will no longer be contractually bound to
provide services originally offered.
3) Renewal tests as outlined are vague and will result in
essentially automatic renewal of franchise.
4) Requirement that all franchises be brought into compliance
within one year impairs contracts fairly and voluntarily
negotiated and is a usurpation of local government's rights ,
and
5) (Specific areas of concern to your franchise agreement)
WHEREAS ; the Board of the National League of Cities should have
consulted with its member cries prior to approving said compromise language.
NOW .' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of (County of)
opposes the compromise language as approved by the
Board of the National League of Cities.
BE IT .FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of (County of)
. urge the Board of the League of California Cities to oppose the
compromise as approved by the .National League of Cities on March 6, 1983 .
BE .IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of (County of)
forward it's specific concerns to the NLC , it's congressional delegation and
a
urge the League of California Cities to work with its member cities to develop
specific legislative provisions to protect the ab ility .of local jurisdictions
to negotiate and enforce local cable franchises,
On .a motion by seconded by
, . the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
on this day of ,
1983, by the following vote, to wit:
.. f
i'
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
R. BURNETT MILLER
Mayor
City Hall, Room 205
Sacramento,California 95814
(916)449-5407
March 31 , 1983
The Honorable ' Charles Royer
.,President" National League of . Cities
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle , . Washington 98704
Dear Mr. Royer:
After . rev.iewing the N_LC/N.CTA compromise language regarding
' proposed federal cable legislation approved on March 6th , I
was dismayed not only with the process utilized to reach
this compromise , but also its specific terms . As written , .
this "compromise" could .ieonarOize the entire francill inr!
process undertaken by the City of Sacramntu ; yet , v!e nad
no opportunity to express our views prior to its adoption .
For the- past three years , and with more. than 40 public hear-
ings , our City and the County of Sacramento has negotiated a
comprehensive franchise ordinance and agreement which seeks
to protect the public interest of cable subscribers . The
NLC compromise language , combined with the provisions of S. 66 ,
threaten to remove our ability to enforce this locally nego-
tiated contract . Our specific concerns relate to the inability
to enforce offers of service over ..the cable. system , as well as
the provision that " buy-out" ..must be at fair market value upon
termination of the franchise.
The NLC Board approved this compromise prior to soliciting
comments .from member cities . I .am particularly angry over
this disregard of the impact such a compromise could have on•
our local operation .
Sacramento met with twenty-one other cities in Washington D . C .
on March 24th to express its concern over the compromise . I
would like to add our voice of protest and reques-t that the
Board of the NLC take the following action :
1 ) Hold a special meeting for the purpose of reconsidering
and withdrawing its approval of the cable compromise .
The Honorable Charles Royer
March 31 , 1983
Page 2
At that meeting , views and opinions from dissatisfied
cities should be heard and considered .
2) Solicit , through a special mailing , the responses of
member cities to the compromise proposal .
3) Actively seek time from all appropriate - congressional
committees and . sub-committees to' allow .for responses '
from NLC member .cities on federal ..cable' legislation .
4) If ; after evaluating the responses of members, it is
determined that there is .a. need for federal cable legis
lation , ` the NLC should actively sponsor and support leg-
islation which protects •.the. public interest, reflects
the .member cities ' rights , and ensures that the full
range. of services will be made available to subscribers
on .economically viable broadband telecommunications
systems . _
I would like to hear your response to these requests by April
8th. Feel free to call me if you have any questions .
Sincerely.
BURNETT MILLER , Mayor
City of Sacramento
BM: ab
cc : -NLC Board Members
Members ; -Senate Communications Sub-Committee
Members ,- House - Sub-Committee on Telecommunications
California Congressional Delegation
Concerned Cities
League of California Cities
National .Association of Counties
U. S. Conference of Mayors
County Supervisors Association of California
D It A F T
3/.2W83
COMPARISON OF KEY ELEM3N'IS OF S. 66 AND SUBSTITUTE BILL
S. 66 Substitute Bill City Position
1. Inter'.ference with Existing Franchises must be'brought into Franchises must be brought into com:
Contractual Relations compliance with Bill within 90 pliance with Bill within 1 year. (in—
days. corporates compromise)
2. Federal Standards/Exclu Exclusive federal jurisdiction Exclusive federal jurisdiction over
sive Federal Jurisdiction over matters in Bill matters in Bill; local authorities
have jurisdiction over matters strictly . :
of vocal concern and within the police :
power..''(incorporates compromise.in part)."
3. Municipal Ownership/Renewal City required to pay fair market At expiration of term, city required to
value for system based on on— pay fair market value for system, to be
going business value of system; determined by arbitration. Upon ter—
city prohibited from denying re— mination for material breach, court re-
newal if franchisee satisfies views termination de novo and deter-
federally—imposed standards. mines purchase price to be paid by city.
City prohibited from denying renewal if
franchisee satisfies federally—imposed
standards; denial of renewal subject to
court review. (incorporates compromise)
4. Rnte Regulation City may regulate rates for basic For existing franchises, city with 4
service (defined an broadcast t.v. stations (at least 3 network affil—
signals) and for public, govern— inter) prohibited from regulating basic
ment, and access channels; FCC service rates after S years.or after
may remove rate regulatory author— half the remaining term of franchise.
ity if there are reasonably avail— If franchise awarded after effective
able alternatives to basic ser— date of Bill (6 mos. after.enactment),
vice. city with 4 t.v. stations prohibited .
from all rate regulation. While rates
are regulated, operator may automati-
tally increase rates SX or the region—...
1. CPI. (incorporates compromise)
*/ The summary of the provisions of the Substitute Bill is bared v", a Senate staff working draft that was released on Monday, March 21, 1983.
Page 2
s, 66 Substitute 11111 City Positlnn
S. Frnnehlse Fee FCC to establish ceiling on fran- `.% franchise fee limit; fee includes
chise fees to be paid to city. eny tax, fee, or assessment of any
Fee may cover cost of regulation kind except existing, payments to en-
only. FCC may waive ceiling upon titles to facilitate public, educa-
proper showing. tional, or governmental uses; no FCC
waiver; nothing in fee limit provision
deemed to require operator to renego-
tiate existing franchise; operator may-
indicate franchise fees on subscriber's _
i bill. (incorporates compromise)
6. Services/Facilities City prohibited from regulating City prohibited from regulating or re-
or restricting the provision of stricting the provision of or nature of
or nature of cable services (one- cable services and telecommunications
way programming) and telecommuni- services offered over a system. (same
cations services (all services, F:9 original Bill).
other than basic service and
cable service, and the facilities CiEy may not require the provision of
to offer such services) offered services, facilities, or other items
over a cable system, of value that are not related to the
+ :ovision of broadband service. -In RFP,
c:.ty may require governmental access .
cf.p.acity and construction of cable sys
%em facilities or provision of cable
equipment. Operator may offer, but not
b,e required to provide, access channels
tied particular video services.
``)erator may remove particular *services
from basic service or other service if a
�.'.gnificant change in circumstances has
o-.curred. Operator may not be required
retain specific service unless in
h.ssic services. Except as otherwise pro
!:.ded, city may enforce offer to provide
.?•!+zticular basic services; cable service,
':!cilities, and equi;ment if such items
are required by the franchise. (incor-
zirates compromise)
Page 3
iS. 66 Substitute Bill Citv Position
7. Access Operator to dedicate 10% of avail- Operator may.offer to dedicate public, -_
able channel capacity for public, educational, governmental, and leased
educational, and governmental channels.: Public, educational; gov-
uses. FCC may relieve operator of ernmental, and leased programming may
access requirement if there are be _combined on one channel until suf-
reasonable available alternatives, f;cient demand for separate channels.
Operator may provide additional City prohibited from imposing common
access channels. Greater access carrier status on cable system.
capacity required in existing (incorporates compromise)
franchises is grandfathered.
8. Cross-Ownership/Entry Federal and local- cross-ownership Federal and local cross-ownership-re-.-
Into Other Business restrictions prohibited. FCC to str;ct:ons prohibited, except that FCC..
set standards for entrance of may restrict ownership of systems by..
foreign-owned systems into U.S. telephone companies.- FCC to regulate
markets. entry by foreign-owned systems. " (does
Rot incorporate compromise except for
zedltion of telephone companies)
Feda'al and local restraints on engagin
'_r :!her businesses prohibited. (incor
porrZes compromise)
7. Privacy Unauthorized interception of sig- Kc;.range from S. 66.'
nals prohibited and made a federal
crime. Operator prohibited from
collecting personally'identifiable
Information except upon prior
written consent of subscriber; un-
less such information is for bill-
ing purposes or for monitoring un-
authorized receptions. Personally
identifiable information may not
be disclosed except upon prior
written consent or court order.
Subscriber to have access to per-
sonal .information and must be in-
formed of his rights. Privacy
remedy of damages is•in addition
to other rrmodles nvailib.l.e.
Page 4
S—66 Substitute Bill City Position
10. New and Additional New services presumed to be in N^ change from S. 66.
Services public interest if no technical
interference problems. FCC ac- _
tion on petitions for new services
required within 180 days after
filing.
Substitute Bill does not address:
(1) Municipal regulation of alternative service providers (not coverid in compromice).
(2) Access to private property by cable operators
(7)' Technical standards
(4) Pole attachment fees
(5) Consumer protection (FTC report to Congress)
The requirement that the city may not restrict the provision of ^: ble services or telecommunications services may,.howevert prevent the
city from enforcing negotiated technical performance standards.
U U
•1625•
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
April 4, 1983
Hon. .Dale Turner
Mayor
1052 S. ' Livermore Avenue
Livermore;' CA 94550
Dear Dale:
As you probably know by ,now, the agreement between the National League of
Cities (NLC) and the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) has been
recommended to the Senate for enactment as a substitute to S.66. Basically _
this legislation would strip our localities of rights they currently have to re-
gulate cable television; it would favor the cable television industry and it is
not the basis for a sound national public telecommunications policy.
New York City staff has met with members of the Senate Commerce Committee
to express our opposition to the substitute bill. However, other cities need
to express their opposition. If you agree, as we do, that the NLC/NCTA
agreement .fails to adequately protect the interests of-the. public and of cities
both large and small, then it is imperative that you immediately contact your
senator, :members of the Senate Commerce Committee and your congressional
representatives asking them to defeat or stop any action on this bill until
greater protection for our cities can be obtained. You should also ask
other cities and towns in your state to join in expressing their opposition.
We are confident that together we can make a difference before the Commerce
Committee mark-up of the substitute bill, which is tentatively scheduled for
April 21 .
For your ready reference, we have enclosed a copy of our comments on the
NLC/NCTA. agreement. It would be helpful to us if you sent us copies of
any letters you send out on this important matter.
All the best. _
Sinc y,
Edward I . Koch
M A Y O R
Carol Bellamy
City Council President
enclosure
1.
March . , 1983
COMMENTS OF NEW YORK CITY
ON THE
PROPOSED NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES/CABLE INDUSTRY
COMPROMISE ON FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION
The City of New York ("City") hereby submits its comments on the
proposed compromise developed between the National League of Cities ("NLC")
and the National Cable Television Association(11NCTA'9 in connection with possible
federal legislation dealing with cable telefision.
The proposed compromise adopted by the NLC Board is not in the best
interest of New York or any other city. We oppose the proposed compromise
because it:
— interferes with existing and anticipated arrangements between
cities and cable operators;
— 'fails to develop minimum standards and guidelines to assist cities
in the exercise of their local prerogatives to protect the public
interest and make decisions consistent with local needs, and
preempts the cities from acting in many crucial areas-of local
policy-making;
— creates franchise renewal ,expectations, controls the purchase
price a city may negotiate to pay for a system when a franchise is
terminated for default or otherwise;
— controls, through franchise fee ceilings, the price a city may
charge for the use of its streeets;
— fails to authorize cities to regulate alternative communications
services, such as satellite, microwave, and direct broadcast
.systems, so as to prevent the development of a coherent approach
to local communications services that would be consistent with
the public interest and ensure that communications services will
be available to all economic segments of the community;
interferes with local decisions to negotiate franchise provisions
requiring the franchisee to provide channel capacity available on
an open, nondiscriminatory basis to third parties in an effort to
enhance the flow of information to the public;
-2-
takes from the cities their power to protect subscribers from
unreasonable and unjustified increases in basic service rates and
to ensure nondiscriminatory access to the system.
The alleged reason for the compromise is that without it Congress will
enact legislation which will be more harmful to the cities than legislation which is
derived from the compromise. We disagree. We believe that if there is no
compromise between the cable industry and the cities, it is likely there will be no
federal legislation.
Although we remain convinced that it is not in the cities' best interest
to have legislation and that a compromise provides the impetus for legislation, we
believe that if legislation is inevitable, it must continue to permit local
governments to negotiate franchise terms which satisfy local needs. The proposed
compromise utterly fails to achieve this objective.
Described below are the major elements of the proposed compromise
and our comments on each provision.
1. Interference with Existing Agreements
Compromise:
Existing franchise agreements must be brought into compliance
with compromise legislation within one year of date of enactment
of the legislation; franchise agreements. now in negotiation inust
also be brought into compliance with the compromise legislation.
Comments:
Simple fairness dictates that a city which has already awarded a
franchise, or a city which has gone a long way toward completing
its franchising process in reliance on the existing regulatory .
framework, should not be required to adjust its existing contracts
and almost completed contracts to comply with the terms of the
proposed compromise legislation. The process of selecting
applicants for a franchise, as well as negotiation of franchise
agreements are based on the normal give and take of negotiations.
The proposed compromise legislation would negate many contract
terms which a city and cable operators have mutually agreed
-3-
upon through arms length negotiations. Accordingly, the City
suggests that the compromise legislation exempt from compliance
any city jurisdictions (1) which have either issued a request for
cable television proposals or accepted applications for cable
franchises as of the effective date of the legislation, and (2)
which have franchise agreements or cable systems in place in all
or in part of the city.
2. Jurisdiction/Minimum Requirements
Compromise:
FCC given exclusive jurisdiction with respect to privacy, cross-
ownership, compensation for access to private property, technical
standards; _
— Cities given power to franchise and negotiate certain operating
and regulatory standards; -
Cities may exercise authority, consistent with federal standards,
with respect to access; rate regulation; franchise fees; public
ownership of cable systems; service/facilities requirements;
renewal; pole attachment fees; entry into new businesses; theft of
service.
Comments:
The City believes that national communications policy goals
relating to cable television can only be achieved through the
adoption of minimum standards by the FCC. The establishment of
minimum standards would permit cities affected by cable service
to achieve higher standards where appropriate locally. The
compromise should be modified to allow local authorities to set
standards that meet local goals so long as they are not lower than
the minimum standards fixed by the FCC.
3. Renewal/Public Ownership
Compromise:
Franchising authority must act on petition for renewal of
incumbent operator in accordance with certain requirements to be
-4-
specified, before considering any other application from a
potential franchisee;
Incumbent operator may appeal denial of renewal to a court;
Cities may own cable systems but may not control content of
programming except for government access channels;
Cities may purchase a cable system under a buy-back provision at
not less than the fair market value of the system based on the
ongoing business value of the system to be determined by
arbitration;
— Cities may acquire a system after termination for an uncured
material breach only upon payment of an amount to be
determined by a court. -
Comments:
a. Granting an incumbent operator a presumption of renewal and -
establishing mandatory renewal standards impinges on the
municipality's decision making process and thus interferes in a
fundamental way with a municipality's traditional .regulatory
functions. Such provisions severely restrict the ability of a city
to negotiate in the public interest, ensure that an operator abides
by his contractual obligations, take advantage of changes in
technology, and freely choose the companies it feels will best
serve its community. Any concept of presumptive renewal must
be stricken from the compromise.
b: The compromise should not mandate the structure under which
localities may own and operate cable systems. The suggestion
that localities will not comply with constitutional principles and
other applicable laws in designing the management structure of a
publicly-owned cable system is offensive. Legislation should not
describe what program management structure will be consistent
with constitutional principles.
-5-
c. The compromise should not fix the price for a city's acquisition of
an ownership interest in a cable system at fair market value. This
is especially inappropriate in circumstances where the operator
abandons the system. A city must have the right to negotiate
with a cable operator the terms and conditions of a city
acquisition of an ownership interest in the cable system.
'There is no justification for forcing a city to pay for the ongoing
business value of the system which, of necessity, includes the
value of the franchise, when the franchise no longer exists and the
privileges granted by `the locality have expired. Furthermore,
arbitration is costly and unpredictable. Instead, cities and cable
operators should be encouraged to negotiate in advance the terms
under which a locality may purchase a system.
Similarly, cities should not be forced to initiate court actions to
establish the purchase price for the system after an uncured
material .breach has caused a city to terminate a franchise.
Under this provision, an operator could build only the lucrative
part of at locality, abandon construction in less desirable areas,
and then force a city to litigate to fix the compensation for that
portion of the system already constructed. This aspect of the
compromise unreasonably favors a cable operator who has
defaulted in the obligations of his franchise agreement.
4. Franchise fees
Compromise:
Imposes franchise fee ceiling of 5% of gross revenue from cable
company operations;
— Allows operator to state on the subscriber's monthly bill, amount
of franchise fee included in the bill.
Comments:
The City is opposed to a federally imposed limitation on the fees
which may be negotiated with cable operators as compensation
-6-
for a franchise to use the City's streets. 7be streets of a city are
a valuable resource, and a city has a right to obtain a reasonable
price for their.use. Other users of the streets pay a reasonable
price to the City for their use. Decisions as to the use,
occupation and value of city streets have traditionally been
entrusted to localities and other users of the streets pay a
reasonable price to a city for their use without federally imposed
limitations.
The City supports the principle that there be no limitations on
the purposes for which franchise fees may be used by local
authorities. Further, it 'must be made clear that cities may
continue to negotiate extra-service packages that will not be
considered part of, or charged against, the franchise fee.
Compromise legislation should not interfere with a city's right to
prohibit a cable operator to indicate the franchise fee on monthly
bills to subscribers. This billing practice is intended to create
public pressure to force local jurisdictions to lower or eliminate
franchise fees.
-7-
5. Definition of Cable System
Compromise:
Cable system defined as a system over which broadband service
is provided to subscribers by means of a closed transmission
medium;
Definition excludes common carrier service by a common carrier
and facilities which transmit broadcast signals only;
Local authorities prohibited from imposing common carrier or
utility status on a cable system, unless the system provides basic
telephone service. .
Comments:
a. The City believes that the definition of "cable system" must be
broad and include alternative communications systems, such as
satellite master antenna television systems direct broadcast
satellite systems, and microwave systems. This will allow cities
to establish a coherent regulatory structure, treating those
service providers in a manner consistent with treatment of cable
operators.
Alternative service providers offer primarily entertainment
programming and are usually marketed in more affluent areas.
These providers have no capacity or facilities to create or
originate new programming or services —.in short, they serve
merely as non-creative middlemen to provide conduits for the
transmission of entertainment programs intended for national
distribution.
If cable television is to continue to grow as a competitive force
in the communications industry, it may need to be protected
-8-
from the alternative service providers who would serve only the
rich and thereby gut the economic viability of full service cable
television systems.
b. The approach taken by the compromise to limit the authority of
a city to negotiate in the grey area of "comon carrier" services
raises serious concerns in connection with the availability of
leased channels. To promote diversity of programming and
competition in the delivery of services, it is essential that a city
be free to negotiate franchise provisions requiring the operator
to provide channel capacity on a nondiscriminatory basis to third
party programmers. Without such requirements, the availability
of leased capacity is meaningless, since the operator could
charge such excessive rates and impose such onerous terms so as
to effectively preclude third parties from leasing capacity and
competing with the cable operator's programming choices.
Since, in many areas, cable television operators will have a
monopoly on information sources to the subscriber, it is crucial
that a city be free to protect the right of programmers to gain -
access to the public.
6. Rate Regulation
Compromise:
Cities may regulate rates for basic service, installation charges,
fees for rental of equipment, and rates for use of public,
educational, and governmental aecoss capacity;
— Basic . service includes local broadcast signals, public,
governmental, and educational access channels, and other
services voluntarily offered by the cable operator; operator may
remove particular service from basic service if there is a
significant change in circumstances;
=9-
Operator may increase rates up to 5% annually without approval
of the franchising authority if the franchising authority fails to
act on a rate increase request within 90 days;
Rates for basic service shall be deregulated within five years
after enactment of the legislation or the date of expiration of
one-half of the remaining life of the franchise, whichever is
greater, if the franchise area is served by four or more
television broadcast stations.
Comments:
The rate regulation provisions of the compromise effectively
strip cities of the power they have to regulate basic service
rates and to ensure non-discriminatory access to the system
throughout the term of the franchise. The City is opposed to
being forced to relinquish the power that it currently has to
protect subscribers from unreasonable and unjustified increases
in rates for basic service and to ensure open access to the
system throughout the entire term of the franchise.
7. Access to Property
Compromise:
Cable companies given right of access to private property to
install cable facilities necessary for legal occupant of property
to receive cable service;
Property .owner may not charge discriminatory rents to legal
occupant solely because the occupant receives cable service;
FCC has exclusive jurisdiction to establish just and reasonable
compensation to be paid by cable operator to property owner.
-10-
Comments:
Exclusive FCC regulation of charges for access to private
property by cable operators is unnecessary. New York State has
legislation which grants cable operators a right of access to
install and maintain their facilities on private property. The
constitutionality of this statute has been litigated and upheld.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 102 S. Ct. 3164
(1982), NY 2d (Slip Opinion, February 17, 1983).
8. Services/Facilities
Compromise.
— Franchising authority may require the provision of government
access services in the RFP and as a condition of the franchise;
Operator may determine not to provide services specified in the
franchise if there is a significant change in circumstances since
the original proposal; if operator removes services, operator must
make reasonable efforts to provide same mix of services as
originally proposed;
Government control over content of programming prohibited,
except that.a locality may exercise police power consistent with
the First Amendment;
Franchising authority may specify, as a condition of the franchise,
that an operator must provide certain cable facilities and
equipment;
Operator may be required to make reasonable .efforts to
interconnect cable systems with other cable systems.
Comments:
The City supports the principle that local authorities may
negotiate with cable operators the facilities and categories of
services that will be available to subscribers. The compromise,
however, eliminates the ability of cities to require the offering of
new services as they become economically and technically
feasible. Moreover, even the services specified in the franchise
agreement can be eliminated if the cable operator determines the
conditions under which they initially proposed the service no
longer exist. These aspects of the proposed compromise are
unacceptable.
9. Cross-Ownership
Compromise:
FCC may restrict local television broadcast station owner from
owning cable system in the area served by the local station, to
prevent concentration of control, if necessary; -
FCC may continue to impose ownership restrictions on telephone
companies;
Neither FCC nor local authorities may impose other
ownership restrictions; foreign ownership of cable systems shall
not be explicitly limited.
Comments:
The City opposes the prohibition on adoption of cross-ownership
standards by the FCC and state and local authorities. Since the
compromise would repeal existing FCC cross-ownership rules,
local authorities must have the right to choose whether they wish
to continue a policy that promotes competition and diversification
of control of the media. There is already concentration in the
broadcast industry. Few cities have more than one newspaper.
The cable industry itself is increasingly dominated by a small
group of multiple system operators. The compromise should not
hasten the trend toward concentration in the communications
industry by eliminating most of existing FCC restrictions and, at
the same time, barring local authorities from adopting substitute
cross-ownership rules.
-12-
10. Technical Standards
Compromise:
FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over technical standards; may
grant waiver to cities for stricter standards.
Comments:
As explained by the NLC staff to the Task Force, the compromise
provides for the FCC to establish minimum technical standards.
The proposed compromise legislation should ensure that the FCC
establishes minimum standards which may be exceeded in
agreements between cities and cable operators. No FCC waiver
procedure should be required in order to include in franchise
agreements more rigorous technical standards than those of the
FCC.
11. Access
Compromise:
Franchising authority and operator may negotiate dedication of
public, educational, governmental, and leased channel capacity;
Franchise shall establish policies and procedures for use of access
capacity;
— Franchising authority may not establish access channel set aside
in addition to capacity specified in the franchise;
Operator may use unused access capacity until franchising
authority determines that demand exists for such capacity.
Comments:
The City supports the proposition that dedicated capacity for
access to the system should be negotiated by franchising
authorities and cable operators.
As part of the negotiation process, cities should also be free to
agree with the cable operator that if initial dedicated access
capacity is insufficient to meet demand, the operator will make
additional capacity available.
Y
-13-
Finally, proposed compromise legislation should make clear that a
franchising authority may require a cable operator to request its
permission before using access channels which are fallow.
12. Privacy
Compromise:
Operator may collect and disclose personally identifiable
information if necessary to provide services, to facilitate bill
collection, or to prevent unauthorizey reception; further disclosure
permitted only if subscriber receives notice of —disclosure and of
his right to prevent disclosure;
No other personally identifiable information may be collected or
disclosed unless authorized in writing by subscriber or required by -
court order; personally identifiable information must be destroyed
when no longer usable for the purpose for which it was collected;
No equipment may be installed on premises of subscriber for visual
or audio monitoring of activities without written authorization of
subscriber.
Comments:
The City supports the protection of subscribers' right to privacy.
However, the City does not believe that the federal government
should have exclusive jurisdiction to establish rules and regulations
governing subscriber privacy. The City believes that it is in the
best interest of subscribers to permit local authorities to prescribe
additional privacy requirements.
13. Theft of Service
Compromise:
— Unauthorized receipt of cable service prohibited by federal law;
— Local authorities may also adopt and enforce restrictions on theft
of service;
— Injunctions to prevent theft of service may be issued; aggrieved
party may recover actual or statutory damages; violators may be
subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
r
-14-
Comments:
The City supports the strengthening of federal penalties for theft
of service and the adoption of theft of service laws by local
authorities. The City suggests that federal law permit an
aggrieved party to recover attorneys' fees, in addition to statutory
or actual damages.
14. Entry into Business
Compromise:
Cable operators may engage in any business incidental or unrelated
to the operation of a cable. system ( ., sale and repair of
television receivers);
Franchising authorities may not restrict cable operators from
..entering into particular services over the system and may not
establish conditions on entry into particular businesses, unless such
restrictions or conditions apply to any other person engaged in that
business activity.
Comments:
The City is opposed to an absolute restriction on local authorities'
power to limit entry into certain businesses. . Such restrictions
should be a matter . of negotiation . between the franchising
authority and the cable operator. There are valid reasons for such
+ions. For example, if cable operators are permitted to sell
or repair television.receivers, they would be in a position to
attribute subscriber complaints to television receiver problems,
rather than .to cable system malfunctions which they are.obligated
to repair. Operators could then impose added costs on subscribers
for television repairs that may be unnecessary.
15. Pole Attachment Fees
Compromise:
— Fees charged for attachment of cable to poles or placement of
cable through ducts subject to federal pole law;
— States which assert jurisdiction over pole attachment fees shall
establish and enforce rates, terms, and conditions that are just and
reasonable.
Comments:
The City supports the principle that pole attachment fees should he
just and reasonable and endorsas the concept of limited FCC
jurisdiction in this area. The compromise legislation should make
clear that the FCC does not preempt a limit on state jurisdiction in
this area.
16. Consumer Protection
Compromise:
Federal :Trade Commission to conduct a study of cable-related
consumer issues, prepare a report for submission to Congress, and
make appropriate recommendations to Congress for legislative
action
Comments:
The City supports the concept of an FTC report on consumer cable
issues. This is an area that has not received sufficient attention
and will become increasingly important as the full potential of
cable services is realized. The City would appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the FTC report prior to or after filing.