Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 John Muir Heal Care Services Presentation (2) 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.