Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCable Advisory Board 1997 Minutes MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD loth FLOOR, LANSING CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair David Koskinen, Vice Chair Gregory Starks, Member Luke Schafer, Member -` im T' Ida Bryanton, Member CJ"ti OTHERS PRESENT Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 Christine Timmon Margo Vroman, Law Dept. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS Christine Timmon - Happy to be present at this committee meeting. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from Darryl Burgess - Public Access Suggestions The Board decided that the letter should be forwarded to MediaOne. Clarence Green, Public Access Manager, is to be asked to attend the next meeting of the Telecommunications and Cable Advisory Board to discuss the equipment concerns from access producers. Member Schafer had suggested that possibly the Board may want to purchase some camcorder batteries for the Public Access facility. B. Letter from John Kerekes - Dissatisfied Customer His letter highlighted concerns regarding Fox Sports. This Channel is now back on MediaOne's line-up. Jack Jordan pointed out that MediaOne does not have a monopoly in Lansing, it is currently the only business to have filed a franchise agreement. Mr. Kerekes lives in Delta Township. The Board decided to forward the letter to Delta Township. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Awarding Grant Applications Karen Schmidt handed out a worksheet for members to use during discussions on bestowing of grants. She also handed out a sheet to show that all Community Access Producers, except Todd Ervin of God Rules, would be able to receive their full grant requests. This would still leave enough money to give the Lansing Concert Band the ability to have three concerts videotaped. Two concerts taped by MediaOne and one to be filmed by St. Thomas Aquinas staff. Christine Timmon stated the amount printed on the handout for videotape regarding her request was inaccurate. She was not asking for VHS tape, which was priced out, but in fact needed 3/4" videotape. Corrections were made to reflect her wishes. Member Bryanton moved that the following grants be awarded: Angel Aguilar to receive 60 minute 3/4" videotapes. 2 � t t ,.� �. .. i Alexander Bolt to receive 50 VHS 120, 10 S VHS 120, 6 60 minute 3/4" videotapes and $214.00 for studio props. Darryl Burgess to receive 30 SVHS120 videotapes. Lansing Concert Band to receive $4,000.00 for production of 3 concerts. Lue Lee to receive 24 30 minute 3/4", 12 60 minute 3/4", 24 SVHS-C120 videotapes and $810.00 for a back drop, logo and 2 microphone flags. Guillermo Lopez to receive 60 60 minute 3/4" videotapes and $350.00 for a painted canvas backdrop. Christine Timmon to receive 54 60 minute 3/4" videotapes. RSVP to receive 6 30 minute 3/4" videotape and $825.00 for a VHS portable color monitor and a VCR. This was approved 5-0. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: Christine Timmon - Thanked the Board for the process and the opportunity to receive a grant. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Schmidt Channel 28 Manager Approved by the Board. Signed by: --------------------------- Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 3 ■' RSVP T.V. Show for Seniors! 417 I RECED SEP 2 5 1V September 23, 1997 L.�Ur�l r`C1�"�vV1J1 t�L Karen Schmidt, Manager Government Access 28 Lansing City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Karen, Thank you for the opportunity to apply for a community cablecasting grant. The completed application is enclosed. Most of Yesterday's Youngsters episodes are shot on location with our own equipment which was purchased from donations received from individuals and organizations shortly after we started the program. Since receiving the initial grant to purchase a set and the opening/ closing format for the show, we have been a no-budget operation. Using VHS equipment of our own allows us to respond quickly to events as they happen. Trying to use Continental's equipment, now MediaOne, was very difficult to schedule for our type of program. Also, as the crew is made up of seniors, we must have rather light weight equipment for them to carry. Our two most senior crewmembers are 90 with the other 'turning 89 shortly. .. .and they are arrong the most active as well. Regular VHS also allows to pre-edit at home and at our RSVP weekly meetings. The portable rronitor will allow us to KNCW what we have in the field and help with an audio situation we currently have. Editing time will also be reduced as well as we won't have to work around a situation to make it work well. We average from 100-120 person hours from idea to finish to create each 30-minute program. After six successful years, winning quite a few awards locally, regionally, nationally and internationally, we now can say "we're a bunch of amateurs with six years of experience and a wall of awards." Hoping this gives you a little of our background should you need it. Of course, I would be happy to provide whatever is needed to enhance our chances to receive our grant request. S��ly' Dee Williams, Producer/Director YESTERDAY'S YOUNGSTERS 5605 Coral Way Haslett, MI 48840 (517) 339-2639 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANSING COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRANT APPLICANT' S NAME : Retired Senior Volunteer Pmgram (ES_SIR) - "YESTERDAY'S YOUNGSTERS" TV SHOW APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer Non-profit organization X_ Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNEL (S) NO_ If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : Janet Clark TITLE : Director ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite lA Complete Mailing Address : Lansing, MI 48911. Day phone : (517) 887-6116 Evening phone: (51 7) 628-3643 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $qnn nn DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE : - Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access X_ Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : Med;aDne P-A_ 37(16) and others as shown on the attached blue flyer. ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . (NON-APPLICABLE) DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . SEE ATTACHED PRESS RELEASE PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . (see attached Press Release) Dee Williams, Producer/Director and volunteer senior crew. BUDGET: LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . Panasonic AG-513B 13" VHS Portable Combo Color Monitor - $411.00 Soft carrying case with straps for above 85.00 AMPEX 197-BCA-30 video tapes. 6 @ $14.79 88.74 MITSUBISHI HSU270 VCR - approximate +/- $300 300.00 approx. (may negotiate a different mdel) By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies. and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinan s . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE DATE OF APPLICATION September 23, 1997 NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application. Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. T.V. Show for Seniors! RSVP i . FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 15, 1997 (PHOTO AVAILABLE) "YESTERDAY'S YOUNGSTERS" WINS AGAIN111 For the second year in a row, YESTERDAY'S YOUNGSTERS - a TV show for seniors, was a winner in the country's largest and longest running community media competition, the Hometown Video Festival. This year's competition, the 20th annual celebration of community n-edia programming, attracted 1,423 entries from 305 cities and towns in 36 states and 2 Canadian provinces. The Alliance for Community Media is the sponsor. Entries by media professionals were judged separately from those pro- duced by non-professionals. The programs were evaluated on how well they address commwzity concerns, in addition to technical quality and execution, by the staff and volunteers of over 40 access facilities and cable companies across the country. On July 10, 1997, Dee Williams, Producer, and crewmernbers Nita Gates, Bev McCauley, Jack Lundmark and Yvonne Cunningham attended the 1997 Hometown Video Festival Awards Ceremony which was held in conjunction with the Alliance for Community Media's 1997 International Conference ' and Trade Show in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. YESTERDAY'S YOUNGSTERS, a 30-minute magazine formatted TV show for seniors and soon-to-be seniors, is created and produced by RSVP volun- teer seniors from the Lansing area. By showing seniors IN ACTION, ON THE GO, FIT FOR LIFE and IN THE KNOW, this show counterbalances the general media negative image of seniors. Seniors are NOT the "rocking chair generation" - they're today's rovers and shakers. The show, itself, proves that! ! All the work from the storyboard to final editing is done by a group of volunteer seniors, ages 64 to 90. It's been on the air continuously for 5 1/2 years, winning numerous local, state and national awards. . .and NO RE-RUNS! A new show is produced monthly which is aired weekly on four cable networks in the Tri-county area and intermittently on Sunday mornings on Fox 47. As a result of winning last year's Hometown Video Festival Award, the show is also currently aired in Palo Alto, California. As a result of winning this year's award, the show is being picked up by the public access station in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. Viewing schedule follows. 5605 Coral Way Haslett, MI 48840 (517) 339-2639 AR MOTTO: -Y4'r l ,vti YESTERDAY we were YOUNG... TODAY we are BETTER in so many ways. DONT MISS THIS Award Winning TV SHOW FOR SENIORS! AIRED WEEKLY ON THE FOLLOWING CHANNELS MEDIA ONE CABLEVISION: 'LANSING, DEWITT, GRAND LEDGE, CH 6 (17) .......MON 8:30 pm THU 8:00 pm s; EATON RAPIDS CH 37(16)......WED 5:30 pm CH 39(1,9)......FRI.4:30.p.m. GRAND LEDGE............. .... CH 36 (16)......THU 8:30 pm TCI CABLEVISION: EAST LANSING/MERIDIAN TWP........... CH 30 ........... THU 9:00,pm AMERICA 3LE: CHARLOTTE ..:.......................................... CH 12 .........MON 4:00 pm MARSHALL;& SURROUNDING AREAS CH 12 ..........Check TV for program schedule HORIZON CABLEVISION: MASON ... :................................ ..,.............. CH 23 ......:.....THU, FRI, SAT, SUN 8:00 pm SAT & SUN 4:00 pm WILLIAMSTON, WEBBERVILLE.... ........ CH 23.............THU, FRI, SAT, SUN FOWLERVILLE, BATH, PERRY, 8:00 am -3:00 pm - 9:00 pm LAINGSBURG, SHAFTSBURG,MORRICE POTTERVILLE/DIMONDALE. .................. CH 23.............THU 8:00 am 9:00 am 7:00 pm Benton,Windsor,Oneida &Eaton Twps. ABOVE PLUS SEE OTHER SIDE............... CH 55.............Check TV for program schedule FOX NETWORK - WSYM..........................:. ... CH 47..............SUN 8:00 am once a month (Call 484-7747 for schedule) Also shown in Palo Alto, Calif. and Shrewsbury, Mass. Winner-1997/1996 Hometown Video Festival-Washington DC(International) Finalist- 1993/1995 Hometown Video Festival(International) Mature Media National Awards-1996 Winner 1997/1995=Merit Award Finalist- 1996/1993 Philo T.Farnsworth Video Competition(Regional) 1995 Silver Images Film Festival Participant-Chicago Greater Lansing Area 1994 Twelfth Annual Video Competition Best of Show& 1st Place Award Special Audience_ 1994 Eldercare Volunteer Award($1000)Category: "Older Volunteers As A Resource" Older Learners 1993 Video Competition-Honorable Mention-Sponsor/Mich.State Office On Aging. TO JOIN THE CREW OR FOR MORE INFORMATION......Call(517)339-2639 ~' , UNIFO'F A SAL�.S & USE 1"rid, C ER I I IC,A i E MULTI-JURISDICTION (Sec reverse side far in:trumicns) Issued to (Seiler) rtddrm-z C:::U:'7:1 Chi:`,•..,--ICPMI07 S C'C'. 1_:C . =11;,_ S1 G, i'•i __ T�:.''_ri I certify that ilarle of�^r irk uyar is enc1.35j,-d as a regis.ered !nV`-L,�l'``y tJ 1 � ❑ 4'��rolesalsr c! I� V ❑ Retailer Streit ..ddry_ pper//P++��-��O, oex No.� �j' ❑ f.4aru;ac;,!rer /lier.{•!rJ/ �l�i✓" ✓ � Lesser (-S,,-t note on r`vcr:,_ :life) City Stat= zip CcdC ❑ Cider . r js .regirter_d .vith the Cefc-,ei lister state and cizirs r+i;hirt r+ anC ' hiC.'1 yaur :�;� �r+Cued dcliv r_r pU rchat�^s :O US and tha[ ar.y such purchases arc .or '.vhalcsaic, resale, ingredicncs or ccrrperents of a new praduct to b- r*`zold, leased, er rented in ttic norm. al ccur a of cur business. We ar it the business of wholt�aling, rczzihna� m3r,ufzC,uring, Ica-sing (rznting) zhe faflawing: Deserip�an c. Business_ - City or State (State P,c isiravcn S � Cate 5� regissr,7,:cn or ID No. or IrJ f;o. UO City or Suta Sum_ P,ncisiradan Carl ar State State Ragistrsticn rr ID No, cr ID No- CI it or St.aitt St3 L^ Rz:-Syts r-ai Oil Clrl Cr Wit''.,:@ Stzt= RC;i:trat:Cn er ID No, cr 1 further =mi I that if any preperry sc 'r y! s: fr.'- is J:.d or =r=nc�d !-y t-t Fr-n as to nzke it c a Sale: or Us.-- Tax wo will pay the ta„ due dime to ric prcG,zr ta.:ing :uz�iorir/ whrn Sate lair sa orc-ridts or infer n t',c seller for madded,tax biilincg- ;h! s ;F'.afi be par-•, of ir<-<�h cr-'cr which wa rn•' hcreat,Lr to ,cc:, Itss other- wise s-=-c---i7cd, ar:+ r S bt slid unit ;mod by us in wr'ting cr nrvcrsd I<y rL-c cry or sit^. Gerwral de, ipt•:cxt of to be p:-t r e :xller: Under G`,c pr„„alder of ptrjurl, I Ewtar or ;tffinm tf zt the infcmzdcn on thy: `orris is due and eorre;t xs to rrcrl matrtriai M=�Cr. L'.0 torized 5ig-.;x=re (G�rrner, Parr e T-idc - Oz r ^ &crate G rcxr} L THALNER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. 3M 3/4 ' ' U-MATIC CASSETTES SP BROADCAST U-MATIC CARTON OTY COL.1 C01-2 SP-10 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 10.82 10.60 SP-20 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 12.07 11.75 SP-30 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 13.50 13.10 SP-60 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 17.60 16.95 MINI FORMAT SP-20S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 11.40 11.15 3M MASTER BROADCAST MBR (For heavy duty mastering and editing) MBR-10 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 10.53 10.35 MBR-20 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 11.50 11.30 MBR-30 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 12.93 12.55 MBR-50 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 15.65 15.35 MBR-60 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 16.90 16.30 MINI FORMAT MBR-5S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 a 10.04 9.85 MBR-20S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 11.03 10.70 3M BROADCAST UCA SERIES UCA-5 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 8.37 8.15 UCA 10 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 8.88 8.60 UCA-20 Hanger Slipper or Album 10 9.35 9.15 UCA 30 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 10.03 9.60 UCA-60 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 14.04 13.45 UCA 75 Hanger Shipper or Album 10 25.84 24.95 MINI FORMAT UCA 10S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 8.72 8.50 UCA 20S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 9.57 9.25 UCA 30S Hanger Shipper or Album 10 18.23 17.75 BULK 3/4"VIDEOCASSETTES BULK MASTER BROADCAST(MBR) MBR-5 Bulk 20 7.96 7.75 MBR-30 Bulk 20 11.20 10.75 MBR-60 Bulk 20 16.24 15.75 MBR-5S Bulk-Mini 20 9.50 9.25 MBR-20S Bulk-Mini 20 10.55 10.25 BULK BROADCAST CASSETTES Bulk Broadcast cassettes are available in 20-pack cartons and cost$2.00 per tape less than the above prices. 1"TYPE C VIDEOTAPES 480 XST MASTER BROADCAST VIDEO TAPE 480 XST 34L 30:00 Tape/Library Case 5 39.32 37.95 480 XST 66L 60:00 Tape/Library Case 5 57.60 55.75 480 XST 96L 90:00 Tape/Library Case 5 87.48 84.95 480 XST 125L 125:00 Tape/Library Case 3 124.77 121.50 479 BROADCAST VIDEO TAPE 479-34L 30:00/L.ibrary Case 5 38.51 36.25 479-66L 60:00/L.ibrary Case 5 54.85 52.95 479-96L 90:00/Library Case 5 83.40 80.95 479-125L 125:00/Library Case 7235 JACKSON ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 • PHONE: (313) 761-4506 FAX. (313) 761-9776 (ITE PL THALNER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. 3M BETACAM 8MM & SUPER VHS TAPES BETACAM SP METAL CASSETTES CARTON OTY COL 1 COL 2 10 last la.1a BC-5MA Album or Hanger Slipper 10 18.19 18.18 BC-IOMA Album 10 20.19 19.83 BC-20MA Album or Hanger Shipper 10 22.22 21.82 BC-30MA Album or Hanger Shipper 50 Large Shell Tapes 10 24.67 24.23 BC-30ML.A Album 34.63 34.01 BC-60MLA Album or Hanger Shipper 10 10 54.57 53.60 BC-90MLA Album or Hanger Shipper Bulk Tapes 40 17.32 17.21 BC-5M Bulk 40 21.99 21.60 BC-20M Bulls 40 24.20 23.76 BC-30M Bulk BETACAM OXIDE CASSETTES 10 5.33 5.24 BC-5 Album or Hanger Shipper 6.28 6.17 BC-10 Album or Hanger Stripper 10 10 8.01 7.87 BC-20 Album or Hanger Shipper 10.31 10.13 BC-30 Album or Hanger Slipper 10 Large Shell Tapes 10 14.20 13.95 BC-30L Album 10 25.90 25.44 BC-60L Album or Hanger Shipper 10 34.25 33.64 BC-90L Album or Hanger Slipper Bulk Tapes 40 4.60 4.51 BC-5B Bulls 40 5.88 5.78 BC-10B Bulk 40 7.79 7.65 BC-20B Bulls 40 10.04 9.86 BC-30B Bulk *3M also has a Snap-Cap system for betacam storage.Call for details 8 MM VIDEOCASSETTES P6-120-3M Plastic Case 10 5.05 4.95 HI 8MM VIDEOCASSETTES 10 6.15 6.05 P6-30 HXP Album 10 8.85 8.70 P6-60 H U Album 10 11.95 11.75 P6-120 HXP Album *Please call for pricing on D-2 Digital Master Videocassettes. SUPER VHS 20 7.45 7.33 ST-30 Sleeve 20 7.87 7•73 ST-60 Sleeve 20 8.58 8.43 ST-120 Sleeve 20 7.78 7.74 ST-30A Album Case 20 8.30 8.15 ST-60A Album Case 20 9.01 8.85 ST-120A Album Case 20 8.31 8.16 ST-30HS HanM Shipper 20 8.72 8.57 ST-60HS Hanger Shipper Z0 9.44 9.27 ST-120HS Hanger Slipper Call 800-686 7235 or FAX us at 313-761-9776 for quotes on lamer quantities. 7235 JACKSON ROAD • ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 PHONE: (313) 761-4506 FAX: (313) 761-9776 (*TC OL THALNER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. SONY BETACAM AND 3/4 " UMATIC VIDEOCASSETTES BETACAM OXIDE SERIES CARTON QTY COL. 1 COL. 2 BCT-5G 10 5.25 5.05 BCT-IOG 10 6.25 5.95 BCT-20G 10 7.85 7. 55 BCT-30G 10 10.00 9.65 BCT-60GL 10 25.00 24.40 BCT-90GL 10 33.00 32.25 BETACAM METAL PARTICLE SERIES - SP BCT-5MA 10 18.00 17.60 BCT-IOMA 10 20.25 19.75 BCT-20MA 10 a 22.50 22.00 BCT-30MA 10 24.25 24.00 BCT-60MLA Large Shell 10 33.25 32.90 BCT-90MLA Large Shell 10 52.50 51.75 UVWT PRO SERIES METAL PARTICLE BETACAM UVWT-lOM 10 17.15 16.90 UVWT-20M 10 19.25 19.00 UVWT-30M 10 21. 50 20.75 UVj-a-60ML 10 28.50 28.25 UVWT-901I1, 10 44.75 44. 50 3/4" UMATIC BRS SERIES KCS-IOBRS MINI 10 8.62 8.20 KCS-20BRS MINI 10 9.38 8.90 KCA-10BRS 10 8.50 8.20 KCA-20BRS 10 8.93 8.50 KCA-30BRS 10 9.75 9.50 KCA-60BRS 10 13.75 13.25 3/4" UMATIC XBR SERIES KCS-IOXBR MINI 10 8.95 8.75 KCS-20XBR MINI 10 10.40 10.10 KCA-IOXBR 10 9.60 9.10 KCA-20XBR 10 11.00 10. 50 KCA-30XBR 10 12.50 11.75 KCA-60XBR 10 15.95 15.40 3/4" UMATIC SP SERIES KSP-S10 MINI 10 9.90 9.40 KSP-S20 MINI 10 11.03 10.75 *continued on next page 7235 JACKSON ROAD • ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 PHONE: (313) 761-4506 FAX: (313) 761-9776 L THALNER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. FUJI TAPE PRODUCT CARTON QTY COL. 1 COL. 2 M321SP METAL BETACAM SP VIDEOCASSETTES (BROADCAST QUALITY) M321SP-05M 5:00 BETACAM SP 10 17.72 17.55 M321SP-10M 10:00 BETACAM SP 10 19.95 19.76 M321SP-20M 20:00 BETACAM SP 10 22.16 21.75 M321SP-30M 30:00 BETACAM SP 10 24.38 23.95 M321SP-60ML 60:00 BETACAll SP LG SHELL 10 33.26 32.60 M321SP-90ML 90:00 BETACAM SP LG SHELL 10 52.12 51.10 H321E PROFESSIONAL OXIDE BETACAM VIDEOCASSETTES (BROADCAST QUALITY) H321E-05 5:00 BETACAM 10 5.09 5.04 H321E-10 10:00 BETACAM 10 6.00 5.94 H321E-20 20:00 BETACAM 10 7.65 7.55 H321E-30 30:00 BETACAM 10 9.75 9.65 H321E-60L 60:00 BETACAM 10 24.99 24.25 H321E-90L 90:00 BETACAM 10 32.45 32. 10 H471S PROFESSIONAL SUPER VHS ***DOUBLE COATED FOR UNPRECEDENTED PERFORMANCE ACROSS THE ENTIRE FREQUENCY RANGE. PACKAGED IN ALBUM CASES. H471S-ST30 30:00 /ALBUM 10 7.25 7.15 H471S-ST60 60:00 /ALBUM 10 8.05 7.95 H471S-ST120 120:00 /ALBUM 10 .8.45 8.35 M221 MP DC HI 8 METAL VIDEOCASSETTES (DOUBLE COATED) 1-1221MP-P630 30:00 HI 8 10 4.73 4.69 M221MP-P660 60:00 HI 8 10 6.75 6.68 M221MP-P6120 120:00 HI 8 10 9.08 8.95 M221E HI 8 VIDEOCASSETTES (FOR ME POSITION) M221E-E630 30:00 METAL E 10 8.30 8.22 M221E-E660 60:00 METAL E 10 11.07 10.97 M221E-E6120 120:00 METAL E 10 14.85 14.61 PG PROFESSIONAL GRADE VHS PG-30 30:00 10 2.42 2.40 PG-60 60:00 10 2.65 2.60 PG-120 120:00 10 2.85 2.80 SG SUPERIOR GRADE VHS (DOUBLE COATED - BROADCAST QUALITY) .SG-30 30:00 10 3.05 3.00 SG-60 60:00 10 3.53 3.50 SG-120 120:00 10 4.16 4.10 7235 JACKSON ROAD • ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 PHONE: (313) 761-4506 • FAX: (313) 761-9776 �, , ., j � . i i r � = 1 1 i � _ i i - - I T- C L THALNER ELECTRONIC LABORATORIES, INC. FUJI TAPE PRODUCT CARTON QTY COL. 1 COL.2 H521E PRO SERIES 3/4" H521E KCA-10 10 8.41 8.25 H521E KCA-20 10 9.22 9.05 H521E KCA-30 10 10.27 10.08 H521E KCA-60 10 13.87 13.61 H521E KCS-10 MINI 10 8.52 8.36 H521E KCS-20 MINI 10 9.31 9.14 H521E BR SERIES BROADCAST 3/4" H521EBR KCA-30 10 12.54 12.30 H521EBR KCA-60 10 16.44 16.13 07 H521EBR KCS10 MINI 10 . 9. H521EBR KCS20 MINI 10 10.81 10.61 H521E SP 3/4" H521ESP KCA-30 10 13.62 13.36 H521ESP KCA-60 10 17.86 17.53 984 H521ESP KCS-10 MINI 10 1 . . H521ESP KCS-20 MINI 10 11.60 11.39 FUJI 3/4" CASSETTES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE BULK. pLEASE CALL FOR PRICES. ALL OF THE ABOVE 3/4" TAPES ARE PACKAGED IN ALBUM CASES. H621E 1" HELICAL SCAN VIDEOTAPE H621E 1640CB 34:00 1"/CARDBOARD BOX 5 35.63 34.96 H621E 3170CB 66:00 1"/CARDBOARD BOX 5 52.29 50.82 H621E 4620CB 96:00 1"/CARDBOARD BOX 5 78.09 77.35 1" TAPE IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN OTHER LENGTHS AND PACKAGING. CALL FOR PRICES ON LIBRARY CASES OR SHIPPERS. D2 DIGITAL VIDEOCASSETTES D-2S-6 6:00 10 17.58 17.25 D--2S-12 12:00 10 31.23 30.64 D-2S-22 22:00 10 43.63 42.81 D-2S-32 32:00 10 56.92 55.34 D-2S-34 34:00 10 56.92 55.34 D-2S-64 64:00 10 80.45 78.94 D-2S-94 94:00 10 121.59 119.32 PLACE YOUR ORDER TODAY: PHONE (313) 761-4506 OR (800) 686-7235 FAX:313-761-9776 7235 JACKSON ROAD • ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 • PHONE: (313) 761-4506 • FAX: (313) 761-9776 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANSING SEP291W COMMUNITY CABLECASTING GUWi !C1WG0U4WL APPLICANT' S NAME : /'�/w,, N �E%L tl `-' A APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer_ Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNEL (S) NO__)(_ If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE : ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if. applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address : 2 2 '7 Alt 741 C u ,11? S 7, I—A Day phone :(5 19 ) L/ � L-' 3 Evening phone: SA /`7C DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $ 70 U o a DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE : Type- of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access_ Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : 3 / G ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS : If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies_ and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinances . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE , DATE OF APPLICATION NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask -you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application . Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. MediaOne- This is Broadband. This is the way. RFewnran SEP 2 9 JW Lr1 JaNa C1Tf COUNCIL September 18th, 1997 MediaOne hereby acknowleges that Producer „�(� (.� has had a Public Access Television show cablecast on our Public Access Channel 37/16 within the previous six months. I e ` - Public-Access Coordinator MediaOne of Lansing 1401 East Miller Road Lansing,MI 48911 tel/51 7-394-0001 fax/51 7-394-6656 RECEIVED Cor 01 APPLICATION WIMSCITY00UML FOR CITY OF LANSING COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRANT APPLICANT' S NAME : y,1�Q/� a7 E r' , l APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNELS) NO_I/ If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE: ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address : foZ 3 o Day phone :37779,?(v Evening phone : 8873-L2 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $ DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE : 4, 0V •00 Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access t� Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : /� (� ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) ow DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS : If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may sn be submitted to fulfill this requirement . PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT', THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENC BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . 3'p A2� vas 7��►.�s oar e ..-� BY y my�signat�below, affirm 'that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies_ and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinance APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE DATE OF APPLICATION NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application . The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you. The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application . Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. r� i � � � �. _ � . . _ I r. ,. r 1 4. ��.� J 1 �� _ . I � �- . , _ �, .. I I I i v is W '"`'�` `�"`'1'rI`" ✓ APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANS ING COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRAN ('► SEP 3 0 IN APPLICANT' S NAME : DAR 1 L bOROV-55 W61NUGIF7 COMM APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer X Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? SORRY ' 1 n.►5 9EAD Q J ES i o r1 Iv 0 GK�[r1`T TNT r, SZAYE. LIST CHANNEL (S)A NO__ If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE : ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if. applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan � gqp_ Complete Mailing Address : 1401 PROSPECTSr, L1A116, I1 Day phone : � � 5 -I � 1�� Evening phone : S A M C� DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $ 25 5 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE: O Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access Educational Ac ess Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : J(o 31 ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . P�Eh% 5K ATTAe Htt) MEET P LCAS VIEW V I bEo SAIAVLESJJAMOV PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . DAIRY L. B u RGF.55 BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . f IK Q%JOI-TE rmv\C"i U/1- 6 Q et) -r��RTY 5 u PAR YHS v�b��TA�E� z �1c�v�� i�� Gov �,_ �(& (3O) IQ- 20 1 Navy �PI5ovf5 or ' TDooK MooVif_5r' �`��' 3o TAPEf AT ! o -10 1 Hoot 0130DE6 Of REquIMD YIkW oll 7,15 EqcH= z�25® I ® — pRovvCrioN TAPES By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies_ and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinances /V APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE (� DATE OF APPLICATION,) NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application . Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. Thank you for taking the time to consider my programs . "OUTDOOR MOOVIES" Currently 11 : OOpm Tuesdays on 16/37 Back in November of 1979 , when I started my other show ( "Required Viewing" ) , I began documenting, via videotape , the drive-in theatres of Michigan. Several years ago I created this spin-off series and since then have traveled hundreds of miles and taped several dozen drive-ins , some still open for business , some waiting to be demolished. This is a locally produced show, complete with entertaining snack bar footage and in some cases interviews with the owners . As you know, many drive-in theatres ar#e now demolished. I have counted over 20 that are now gone. . .but live on, in a way, because I took the time , effort, and money (gas , transportation, etc. ) to document them. The 5 minute preview tape should give you a good idea of what the show is about. If I receive a grant, I plan on expanding the show from 30 minutes to one hour . When I highlight an open drive-in, I often tell viewers how they can get there from Lansing. This show allows people to relive the days of drive-ins . It is unique and in my opinion deserves a little help since I have footed the entire bill for years . There are nine drive-in sites (25 screens) still open in Michigan, and except for the .CHERRY BOWL in Traverse City, "OUTDOOR MOOVIES" has highlighted them all. There are several abandoned ones I still hope to document. Please consider helping me with the funds I am asking_ for. Thank you. "REQUIRED VIEWING" Currently on 16/37 Fridays at 8PM Again, the 5 minute preview tape should speak for itself , and I thank you for taking the time to consider my grant proposal . Ralph Nader, Jack (Dr. Death) Kavorkian, Ted Nugent, Michael Moore , and others have visited our City and because RQV was there , the event was shown to more people than if RQV wasn' t there. Uncut speeches , with no commentary to confuse the issue, is how I cover these appearances . When I tape events such as Oldsmobile ' s 100th Birthday, I 'm able to take a plant tour, tape curved dash classics , and basically give hours of coverage frankly seen no where else. Crusin ' to the Zoo, Car Capitol Celebration, U.N. Day (as well as the protests ! ) , Brass Roots Rally, Russell Johnson (Gilligan' s Island) , The sale , WITHOUT a public vote , of the Lansing Civic Center, the 20th Anniversary of Gier Community Center, documentation of the facts that for over two months there was NO street sign at the corner of Mich/Penn, Comstock Park Playground Equiptment Dediication, the premier of ONE DOWN at the Odeon, the demolition of the Gladmer theatre , and I could go on and on. I 've shown uncut, unedited interviews with candidates for Mayor, City Council , and City Clerk. I am very proud of my efforts , and thank you again for your time and efforts looking at all the proposals . In addition to this grant request, please take a moment and look at some suggestions that I have included. MediaOne" This is Broadband. This is the way. September 18th, 1997 MediaOne hereby acknowleges that Producer c�V has had a Public Access Television show v- cablecast on our Public Access Channel 37/16 within the previous six months. I�e _ Pu.blic-A ess Coordinator MediaOne of Lansing 1401 East Miller Road Lansing, MI 48911 tel/51 7-394-0001 fax/51 7-394-6656 PLEASE NOTE: THIS PAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE A GRANT REQUEST. IF ADDING A PAGE OF SUGGESTIONS AT THIS TIME WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE PLEASE INFORM ME IN WRITING. OTHER THAN GOING TO YOUR MEETINGS OR WRITING A LETTER SUCH AS THIS , WE (PRODUCERS) HAVE NO WAY OF COMMUNICATING OUR CONCERNS , AND HAVING BEEN INVOLVED WITH PUBLIC ACCESS SINCE 1979 , I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO COMMUNICATE. AGAIN, IF THIS LETTER IS IMPROPER, PLEASE TOSS IT ASIDE SO THAT IT DOES NOT SPOIL MY CHANCES OF OBTAINING THE GRANT. First of all , I AM very proud of my programs , however , my programs are part of a bigger picture . The public access channel is a great idea, and frankly, I wish more people would use it. Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that any money MEDIA ONE spends on 16/37 is money well spent. It would cost THOUSANDS of dollars for MEDIA ONE to produce what is basically handed to them in a wide variety of programing produced by individuals who pick up the tab. Events , topics , issues , and other program choices that WOULD NOT be available to MEDIA ONE if again, individual producers did not take it upon themselves to volunteer their services . I have decided NOT to make an issue of last years grant money that DID NOT find, for whatever reasons , its way to the producers but instead found its way to the General Fund of the City. I am curious about the dollars involved and wanted to bring to your attention that several producers are aware that money intended to help them produce shows was not available last year. The good news is that MEDIA ONE has provided producers with high quality SUPER VHS videotape recorders , as well as a beautifully. simple to use SUPER VHS editing deck that pulls double duty as a standard VHS editing deck. As a producer, I want to go on record as thanking MEDIA ONE for this , and assure you that this allows for the creation of , again, high quality programs . You may have noticed that SUPER VHS tapes cost more than standard VHS tapes . A color TV costs more than a Black and White tv. The purchase of SUPER VHS equiptment is a great investment in the future of public access . The bad news is that some producers do not properly recharge batteries on the old VHS as well as the new SUPER VHS cameras . I must admit I have no idea how to correct this sitivation, other than to request that the Cable Advisory Board instruct MEDIA ONE to buy MORE batteries . I understand that even THESE new batteries could be misused but I must say that MANY times I have had to stop taping because my batteries have run out, usually when using the old VHS cameras . Most recently I was half way through taping a days worth of Oldsmobile ' s Birthday when I was forced to stop. Taping that event was so important to me that I took a bus downtown. On the bus going home, I was not very happy. My suggestion is for MEDIA ONE to buy more batteries . Again, I hope that making these sugaestions at this time is proper. I hope that this does not ruin my chances of being able to get a grant . In the RECOMMENDED POLICIES fler , it states that THE CITY MAY SET ASIDE A PORTION OF THE AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING. . .ADVERTISING AND/OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS TO INCREASE CABLE SUBSCIBERS ' AWARENESS OF PROGRAMS APPEARING ON THE COMMUNITY CHANNELS . I read this and was tempted to include a request along these lines , however, these words did not appear under the Permitted expenditures of City grant funds . I understand that this would involve work, however , I am suagestinq that in addition to the arants , that some of this promotional money be opened up for individual producers to help promote their shows . Producers could create 30 second spots that promote their programs . These spots could then be submitted to MEDIA ONE and if approved, run on cable. MEDIA ONE could obtain the funds needed for this with the availabe funds and, with a bit of effort, create a situatiion where public access programs had a chance to be noticed by viewers watching other stations . Or , the producer could seek funds for making posters to promote their show. I don' t know how you' d go about this , and I find it a bit too much to ask for two arant cycles per year just for this , but please just think about it. Perhaps next year promotional activities could be added to the list of permitted expenditures . I understand that you may not be able to arant every request submitted to you by producers , however , I ' d hope that you spread the funds out so as to create the best programming choices . Please remember that producers Give up a lot of their time and creative effort to their programs . I would hope that most of the public access producers requesting a grant recieve at least a portion of the funds BEFORE those funds are dumped into the City of Lansings ' General Fund. I ' d like to thank Karen at 12/28 for dealing with this grant situation in a professional manner, as did those at MEDIA ONE. One last concern is that in the past producers have been given a years worth of tape and then been told they must use it all up in two or three months . Obviously that is not right, and I 'm sure that will not be the case this year. If any of you have questions about public access , please feel ee a contact me. Thank you again for your time. DARRYL BURGESS 485 2822 1407 PROSPECT STREET, LANSING, MI 48912 �V IUw�V..�-G �.,wr���GUf •T- APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANS ING COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRANT SEP 2 9 IW APPLICANT' S NAME : A11)S p an /"I 'ERyi&I Lit U9i YCCUNC1L APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNEL (S) NO Z If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE : ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address : 7 g Z i W[uoU,) Ow,j 6 f,#NND Le 6t�—t'1x Day phone : 3 / Evening phone : 6a7 9 3a•'? DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $ dw DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE : Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : 2)r ' C� ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . ` \/` ) Leo w ee L� Se r i es + F1 our S Hcc,_� PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . 1jC,1f �/ (CPS 4- (A E4-0- 4uD '7Ypi 6;+s io4A-r"Acto BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . ,4 X/,eAe (f) � V�e�. U��� -T hE s -Tur_ TPE Com j )�+ o, 7ZoG o SU !fe ►� �r�t�lnt a N ?jILfS MZ 4 3 �c� ► ail _ t 31 r'rrg_e. CQ UG'-4� %ID 6 �Gc e"c* TAi>E M Q ST By my signature below, I. affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies. and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinances . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE DATE OF APPLICATION NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application . The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application. Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. MediaOnem This is Broadband. This is the way. September 18th, 1997 MediaOne hereby acknowleges that Producer /oob try Ra� has had a Public Access Television show 60LO fi of s; % 'V cablecast on our Public Access Channel 37/16 within the previous six months. Public Access Coordinator MediaOne of Lansing 1401 East Miller Road Lansing,MI 48911 tel/51 7-394-0001 fax/517-394-6656 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANS ING �I��'���r> - COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRANT SEP 2 5 01 APPLICANT' S NAME : Lue Lee G CITY COUNUIL APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer_ Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES X _ LIST CHANNEL (S) Me -ia(1 e Pilhlir AcPsS Cn. 37/16 NO If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE : ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if. applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address : Hmong Lib Neej Television Day phone :(517) 394-9188 Evening phone :(S�)hh9_802:1 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED : $1 ,500 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE :,%100 Type- of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access_ Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : iledi aOne Public Access Ch. 37/16 ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here 'or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . Please see attach sheet for details. PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . Please see attach sheet for details. BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . Please see attach sheet for details. By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies. and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, e u nity, and affirmative action requirements imposed City co racto by the Charter and the Code of Ordinance APPLICANT' S SIGNATUR DATE OF APPLICATION 9 �� NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask -you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application . The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant,' you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application. Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM (S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: Hmong Lub Neej Television(Hmong Lives) is a series talk show speaking Hmong language (from Laos) interviewing key people and educators regarding education, personal success, religious, cultures, and problems that the Hmong youth facing in the Hmong Communities. The show had have been on air for years. Guests of the Hmong Lub Neej Television come from Detroit, Saginaw, and out of states. Enclosed you will find a video clip of the current show. PERSONNEL: Lue Lee (myself) is responsible for producing and directing the show. I have a Degree in television production from Ferris State University and also an employee with MediaOne as a Public Access Coordinator. Keng N. Vue is the host of the show. He plus other helpers are certified from MediaOne's public access television studio workshops. BUDGET: Hmong Lub Neej Television is needs of funds for the following items: 1. 24 3/4" KCA...30 BRS.....$9.69 per tape Total cost......$ 232.56 2. 12 3/4"KCA...60 BRS......13.49 per tape Total cost......$ 161.88 3. 24 1/2" S-VHS ST-120C -7.89 per tape Total cost......$ 189.36 4. 2 microphone flags Estimate Cost $150.00 5. Hmong Lub Neej TV Logo Estimate Cost $250.00 6. A back drop for on location interview Estimate Cost $350.00 7. Location shoot place rental Estimate Cost $200.00 Total cost $1,533.80 Video tape prices were based on firm price quotes without tax from B & H The Professional Video Source Book. TITLE M0OC, L,j(3 NGE3 T [ ME ];OC, n.Y_ CHANNEL A DATE EPISOOE I . �—S—�� aLiH)MIN . 3Q SEC . G(3. FORMAT 3I 2 MIN ._ SEC . �i FORMAT �a 3 .�-�� -2 �1 MIN . SEC FORMAT 4 .�-�(� MIN . SEC . FORMAT s . -� MIN . 3�SEC . QO FORMAT 6J-9 I I MIN . 3C) SEC . QO FORMAT 7 . �—��a 2 MIN . ?7 2 SEC . Q� FORMAT 8 . D5_ MIN . 30 SEC . Q FORMAT 9 . Mo MIN . _SEC FORMAT. 10 . MIN . _SEC . ( FORMAT 11 . 1`�3 2CP MIN . i SEC . ' / FORMAT 12 . IN . SEC . FORMAT 13 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 14 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 15 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 16 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 17 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 18 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 19 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 20 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 21 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 22 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 23 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 24 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 25 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT 26 . MIN . SEC . FORMAT APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANS ING OCT 01 W7 COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING GRANT LAN-jil4u CITY COUNCIL APPLICANT' S NAME : r - /, _L' APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer � Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNEL (S) -3� NO If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME : TITLE : ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. �1 Complete Mailing Address : j 1�7 i9J°,2S Day phone : W3 - Evening phone : DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED: $ DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE : Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access�� Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : 31 -f / ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM(S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . fa✓�3�/ A u�Ji%A,e it r/P�r�u t f'y�Le4yr�z r� v/<--fa `!'/ rf /CL�f' o y�... L�rs✓LL�L.t�/L/-/t L Yv - � -Z v - J BUDGET : LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED . INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS . �o b e-,,4 ff�cK- 3I+f i/N�L� T-v �2 6//6lf o 41a-4 G J /SO .0 i C 1,4 G �f' ffJ!I f L/ i71"� OZ{ BS7 ii-!%f1TlJ, By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies. and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinances . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE DATE OF APPLICATION �- NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you . The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application . Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City . "RAICES DE LA RAZA" (Script Treatment) Raices de la Raza will be an interview show, focusing on individuals of Hispanic decent who have contributed or are contributing to the betterment of the community at large, but in particular to the Hispanic community and thus serve as role models . The "interviews" will be done is such a way that what we will have are actual conversations touching on the subjects germane to the expertise of the guest(s) . The program will air once a week and will be of one hour duration. The set will be prepared to accommodate the host and as many as three guests . The conversations will be in spanish and english or both. The majority of the time spanish will be spoken. From time to time we may have performers, displays of art and or crafts, as well as products produced or prepared by Hispanic entrepreneurs . The program will be in two segments with a break that will allow us to air PSA' S and to give general information about the show to the viewing audience. This will also allow us to have two sets of guests in different areas of concern. Our theme music will reflect the diversity of the Hispanic population in the viewing area. It is necessary that we also develop an appropriate backdrop. For this we will be soliciting input from students, community members and other interested parties . 1 -` - RECEIVED APPLICATION SEP 0 4 JW FOR CITY OF LAN S I N G 1TC0UNCl1. COMMUNITY CABLECAST.ING G�rGCY APPLICANT' S NAME : Christine Timmon APPLICANT' S PRODUCTION CATEGORY (check one) : Individual producer X Non-profit organization Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNELS) NO X If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual (s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements : NAME: TITLE: ATTACHMENT REQUIRED : If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attach a current -copy of the Federal IRS 501 (c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address : 335 E. St. Joseph ,'#2, Lansing, III, 48933 Day phone : 487-2576 Evening phone : DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED: $ DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE: $500.00 Type of programming to be produced (check one) : Public Access X Educational Access Governmental Access Community channel number (s) on which applicant' s programming will be cablecast : -3714- 1 tO ATTACHMENT REQUIRED: If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel (s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s) . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM(S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRANT FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet; other types of descriptions, such as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or any combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement . Talk show. . .ad release attached. Jewels of Knowledge will be a local forum for all citizens affairs in our local community. PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE . Christine Timmon. . .Hostess Tim Godfrey. . .Manager/Producer/Director/Camera Man BUDGET: LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED. INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES . SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS. 7Tideo, program sets , flats, backdrops , graphics, logos, on-camera visuals, rental of locations such as meeting rooms , auditoriums outdoor location , special transportation for logos and program sets and specific items that would aide in production. Amounts will be on attached sheet. By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies.. and requirements, as well as pertinent non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action requirements imposed. on City contractors by the Charter and the Code of Ordinances . APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE l .e;Q�,li�r� Q-/i •� - DATE OF APPLICATION k. NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS : The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. The Board will determine the viability of your program proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with you. The Board' s primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content . If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in your application. Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. September 4 , 1997 COMMUNITY CABLECASTING GRANT FIRM PRICE QUOTES FOR EXPENDITURES KELLOGG CENTER MEETING ROOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " " " " . . . . . .$100.00 DAY 432-4000 LANSING CENTER MEETING ROOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$200.00 DAY 483-7400 Lighting, Stagehand and Audio Visua Equipment. . . . . . . . .$20.00 HR VIDEO TAPE (STANDARD PRICE) . y' .? , '�`l�°�� ,��; ,Vavu� ,(�6 A- o. . . , . , , . , .$4. 95 ECH ADVANCED IMAGING SERVICES 485-2440 Posters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$8.00 to 14.00 SQ FT Logo Set Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$60.00 ECH Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$60.00 ECH INSTY PRINTS 371-5205 JEWELS OF KNOWLEDGE BUSINESS CARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14. 95/500 Laser Prints for Ad-Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * e *$79.00/100 Programming Copies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . .$20oOO/500 Typesetting. . . . . . . * a * 9 * ee$15eOO PG TRANSPORTATION FOR "ON LOCATION" SITES Enterprise Rent-A-Car. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$39.00 DAY Deposit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$250.00 394-5575 Beal Street Car Rentals, . . . . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25.00 DAY Deposit. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . - o . . . . . . . . . . o . . . .$175.00 882-8606 Two Men And A Truck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$260. 00/4-HR Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$130.00 485-4545 Classic Caddy Limousines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$40.00 HR Emerald Limousine Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$60.00 HR 323-4701-----371 -3960 Classic Caddy Limousines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$85.00 HR 372-5466 JAMMIN' STUDIO. . .CHRIS & JERRY 332-8313 On Camera Visuals, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$60.00 HR Graphics. . . . . . . . . . HR Logo. . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . o . .$60.00 HR Dubbing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$6.00 ECH Music Editing. , . . . . . o . o . o . . . . . o . o . 00 . . . . . oo . . . . . o . . o . . . o$60.00 HR Camera Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oo . . . * * * o * oo@S40-OO HR September .3, 1997 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION MEDIA ONE We have received a request from Christine Timmon requesting to have her program, "Jewels of Knowledge,, cablecast at our studios at P'edia One. . . .Channel3ik �,le agree to have Christine Timmon use our facilities at I"Iedia One to produce "Jewels of Knowledge" . Sincer y +C x ,[ % / �/ �i' vos 46 i.r low,wl I i i • L�P�O LANSING CONCERT BAND P.O.BOX 11152•LANSING,MICHIGAN 48901 • 517 321-3274 A�'� September 30, 1997 RECEIVED d11W Lansing Cable and Telecommunications LANSIINGGIT`t CO'UNUL Advisory Board Tenth Floor, City Hall 124 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Lansing Concert Band is submitting the enclosed grant application for $10,000 from the "community cablecasting grants" funding from FY97-98 funds. The purpose of the grant request is to produce a series of five video-taped live concert events celebrating the Lansing Concert Band's 50th. Anniversary 1997-98 season. This year also marks the 30th. anniversary of the Lansing Concert Band being designated the "Official Band of the City of Lansing", by resolution of the Mayor and City Council in 1967. The intent of this project is to make the entertainment and education legacy of the Lansing Concert Band's 50th. more widely available and accessible to the Lansing community, through the presentation of the video-tapes of the 1997-98 concerts on public access cable television channels in Lansing. The Lansing Concert (LCB) Band Board of Directors has authorized the submission of this grant application at it's regular meeting on September 23, 1997. Several members of the LCB Board of Directors and myself are stand available both to answer any questions and to work with the Lansing Cable and Telecommunication Advisory Board to bring the project in this grant application to fruition. Please contact me directly if you either have additional questions or need additional information about this grant proposal at 886-0298 or you may leave a message on the LCB phone line at 321-3274. Very truly yours, Ross E. Munson, President Board of Directors enclosure APPLICATION FOR CITY OF LANSING COMMUNITY CABLECASTING GRANT APPLICANT'S NAME: Lansing Concert Band APPLICANT'S PRODUCTION CATEGORY: (check one) Individual producer Non-profit organization—X Public Institution IS APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAMING AND SCHEDULING OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY ACCESS CHANNELS? YES LIST CHANNEL(S) NO X If applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, provide the name of the individual(s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements: NAME: Ross E. Munson TITLE: President, Board of Directors, Lansing Concert Band ATTACHMENT REQUIRED: If applicant is a non-profit organization, please attache a current copy of the Federal IRS 501(c) (3) tax exemption statement and, if applicable, a copy of articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. Complete Mailing Address: Lansing Concert Band P.O. Box 11152 Lansing, MI 48901 Day phone:(517) 886-0298 Evening phone:(517) 321-3274 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED: $10,000 DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ALL MATCHING FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND/OR ANY OTHER SOURCE: $54,200 Type of programming to be produced (check one): Public Access X Education Access Governmental Access Community channel number(s) on which applicant's programming will be cablecast: 28 ATTACHMENT REQUIRED: If the applicant is an individual producer, please attach a letter signed by an authorized individual stating that the entity responsible for programming the channel(s) listed above agrees to cablecast the proposed program(s). DOES NOT APPLY DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM(S) OR SERIES TO BE PRODUCED USING GRAND FUNDS: If the description is narrative, provide details here or on an attached sheet: other types of descriptions, such a as a sample piece of video, a script outline or treatment, a storyboard, or an combination of these, may be submitted to fulfill this requirement. SEE ATTACHMENT#1. PERSONNEL: LIST THE PRINCIPAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEIR EXPERIENCE. The Lansing Concert Band is an all volunteer organization, except for the paid professional position of Music Director and Conductor, Mr. Richard J. Suddendorf, Director Emeritus of Bands, Western Michigan University. (See Attachments #3. and #4.) Mr. Suddentdorf is the principal artist involved with planning the concert programs included in this proposal. The LCB will contract for video-production costs for this concert series BUDGET: LIST THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED. INDICATE WHETHER AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES OR ARE BASED ON FIRM PRICE QUOTES. SEE DESCRIPTION OF ALLOWED AND PROHIBITED USES OF GRANT FUNDS. SEE ATTACHMENT#5 By my signature below, I affirm that all of the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. If my application for a grant is approved, I agree to comply with all Grant Program policies and requirements, as well as pertinent non- discrimination, equal opportunity, an affirmative action requirements imposed on city contractors by the charter and they-cgde of Ordinances. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE L/I C DATE OF APPLICATION September 30, 1997 NOTE TO ALL APPLICANTS: The Lansing Cable Advisory Board may ask you to attend a Board meeting for further discussion of your application. the Board will determined the viability of your program proposal and my modify the grant application in consultation with you. The Board's primary concern will be the resources you need to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content. If you are awarded a grant, you will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City of Lansing in which you agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programing specified in your application . Unexpended grant funds must be returned to the City. ATTACHMENT #1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LANSING CONCERT BAND GRANT REQUEST LANSING COMMUNITY CABLECASTING GRANT The Lansing Concert Band is requesting funding for producing high-quality video programs to be shown on Lansing Community Cable Television channels of each of the five major concerts in its 50th. Anniversary 1997-98 season. The Lansing Concert Band also is celebrating its 30th. year as the "Official Band of the City of Lansing", by resolution of the Mayor and City Council in 1967. A brief description of each concert program follows. 1. Dart Auditorium, Lansing Community College--Friday, October 24, 1997 The Lansing Concert Band (LCB) will share the stage at Dart Auditorium with the Motor City Brass Band from Detroit, Michigan, in a program of all British band music, including "English Dances" by Malcolm Arnold, "Pineapple Poll" by Arthur Sullivan, "Flourish for Wind Band" by R. Vaughn Williams, and "The Mad Major March" by Henry Alford. The LCB also will feature guest conductor Kenneth G. Bloomquist, Director Emeritus of Bands, Michigan State University, and former Music Director of the Lansing Concert Band. 2. Holiday Concert, Wharton Center, Michigan State University-- Friday, December 12, 1997 The Lansing Concert Band will present a Holiday Concert in the Wharton Center Great Hall, featuring a wide variety of music, including "Courtly Airs and Dances" a major new work by contemporary composer Ron Nelson, "The Twelve Days of Christmas" arranged by jazz band leader Stan Kenton, and Leroy Anderson's popular "Sleigh Ride". The LCB will be joined by featured alto saxophone soloist, Joseph Luloff, Professor of Saxophone, Michigan State University School of Music, and by featured choral group, The Lansing Gay Men's Chorus, conducted by William Hensen. A special pre-concert event is "TubaChristmas", in which 80 or more tuba and euphonium players will perform special arrangements of traditional Christmas carols on the Wharton Center stage. 3. St. Thomas Aquinas Church, Friday--February 13, 1998 The Lansing Concert Band (LCB) will present a concert of music for winds and for organ and winds, featuring the Grand Organ in St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church, East Lansing, Michigan. This unique program will honor the 50th. Anniversary seasons for both the Lansing Concert Band and the Lansing Chapter of the American Guild of Organists. The program will include music by Gabrielli, Bach, Gigout, Schumann, and Weinberger. The guest organ soloist joining the LCB for this program is Bruce Campbell, Professor of Music at Michigan State University, performing two solo pieces. In addition, Dr. Conrad Donakowski, Professor of Humanities at Michigan State University, will accompany the LCB on the Grand Organ on the pieces by Gigout and Weinberger. 4. Young Person's Concert, Wharton Center, March 3, 1998-- The 1998 annual LCB concert for 2,300 students in grades 3-5 will have the theme "Emotions in Music", combining the visual arts and the performing arts. The setting is the Great Hall of the Wharton Center at Michigan State University. A study guide and an audio tape of portions of the music from this concert will be sent to the participating schools and their teachers approximately two months in advance of the concert. The students will be asked to draw pictures of the emotions and visual images evoked in their minds by the musical selections that they hear. The teachers will submit the best drawings from their classes to the LCB in advance of the concert. The LCB will be contacting Roy Saper of Saper Galleries in East Lansing to assist in judging the drawings and selecting those that best represent the emotions and images conveyed by the musical selections. The selected drawings will be projected on a large screen above the LCB during the concert, for the entire audience to view, along with pictures of professional art that also represents the emotions and images of the music on the concert program. The LCB also intends to make the-video-tape of this concert available to schools for educational purposes. 5. "Dinner at the Pops", Holiday Inn South--Sunday, April 26, 1998 The Lansing Concert Band will conclude it's 50th. anniversary season with a "Boston Pops" style dinner concert, featuring jazz vocalist Patti Richards and the Jeff Kressler Trio as our guest artists, with the formal concert followed by dancing. Patti Richards will perform medleys of music by George Gershwin and Duke Ellington, in special arrangements for the Lansing Concert Band by Jeff Kressler. Internal Kevenue Service vepar ullerit UI Me i reasury District Director _ fit}-cek nc,\t2.I qa#10 � Date: APR-2 9 I 6 Fuson to C«rtact: Gary Muthert Contact Telephone Number: 513-684-2501 Lansing Concert Band Association P. 0. Box 11152 Lansing, MI 48901 Dear. Sir or Madam: -Based on the information you recently submitted, we have classified your organization as one that is not a private foundation witaLn the meaning of section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code because you are an organization described in section 509(a) (2). Your exempt status under section 501(c) (3) of the Code is still in effect. This classification is based on the assumption that your operations will continue as you have stated. If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. This supersedes our letter dated December 15, 1985. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shoran above. Sincerely yours, District Director P.O. Box 2508, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Letter 1078(DO) (Rev. 8—& �J'ntroducing the Lansing concert Vand The Lansing Concert Band is a community band with a rich history spanning over fifty years in the mid—Michigan area. Today the all—volunteer, one—hundred member, adult concert band is a first—class performing ensemble, appearing in many concerts, festivals and civic functions throughout the year. This non—profit organization's charter is to serve Lansing and surrounding communities by providing quality musical entertainment and a vehicle with which adult musicians can continue to perform and expand their musical horizons. Activities The band's year—round activities include a traditional holiday concert at MSU's Wharton Center Great Hall, a children's concert attended by over 2,500 elementary school students from Lansing and surrounding communities, a high school honors concert featuring talented student musicians, a pops concert, and performances for graduation exercises, outdoor park concerts, and other community events. For the past several years, the band has been featured in concert as part of the City of Lansing's Independence Day celebration at Riverfront Park. Associations The Lansing Concert Band is proud to be the Official Band of the City of Lansing. That designation was made in 1967 by the Mayor and City Council of Lansing. The band also enjoys an ongoing association with Lansing Community College, a partnership which originated in the 1960's. Today, LCC is the primary sponsor of the Lansing Concert Band. In turn, the band represents LCC's music department and students can earn college credit. In addition, as local representative of the American Legion Okemos Post 269 band, the Lansing Concert Band competes in the annual State Legion band competition.The LCB has been the state champion for the past several years. Awards On July 4, 1994, the John Phillip Sousa Foundation presented the Lansing Concert Band with the Sudler Silver Scroll, North America's most prestigious award for community concert bands. This international award recognizes community concert bands of outstanding musical excellence. The Lansing Concert Band was the ninth organization nationwide to have received this much sought after honor. guests Over the years, many prominent guest soloists have appeared with the Lansing Concert Band: Anne Clarke, Piccolo; David Bandfield, Piano; Richard Illman, Byron Autrey, Glen Akers,James Kasprzak, and Alan Siebert,Trumpet; Frank Ell, David Bowman, and Susan Karnes, Clarinet;Joseph Luloff and James Forger, Saxophone; Curtis Olson,Trombone; the late Luis Maldonado, Euphonium; Philip Sinder,Tuba; Judy Moonert, Percussion; Anne Bloomquist and Debbie Byrne, Soprano. The Lansing Concert Band has been joined in concert by the East Lansing Arts Chorale, under the direction of Dale Bartlett, and by the Steiner Chorale, directed by Robert Hundley. The band's list of guest conductors includes the late Dr. Leonard Falcone, the late Dr. William Revelli, Dr. Harry Begian, Kenneth G. Bloomquist, John Whitwell, David Catron, and Merle Evans. Richard 47. Suddendorf Music Director and Conductor Lansing Concert Band Director of Bands, Emeritus �I Western Michigan University Richard J. Suddendorf was Director of Bands and Professor of Music at Western Michigan University from 1979 until 1991. During his tenure at Western, the University Symphonic Band performed for the midwestern Music Conference in Ann Arbor, the College Band Directors National Association Convention in Atlanta, GA, and the Music Educators National Conference in Chicago. This same ensemble made four series of recordings for Carl Fischer and a series of cassettes for Boosey and Hawkes. From 1979 to 1987, Mr. Suddendorf conducted both the University Symphonic Band and the Concert Band. For the next three years he conducted both the Symphonic Band and the University Symphony Orchestra. Throughout his twelve years, he taught highly regarded conducting classes at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and served on the faculty for the School of Music's SEMINAR summer music program for high school students. In 1981 he founded the Kalamazoo Youth Wind Ensemble, which has since become the Kalamazoo Youth Sym- phonic Band, a special ensemble for outstanding high school instrumentalists from the region. Prior to his tenure at Western, Suddendorf was at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, for nine years, 1970-1979. He served as Director of Bands, Instrumental Department Coordinator and Conductor of the Symphonic Wind Ensemble, University Concert Band, and the University Symphony Orchestra. His appointment at Capital followed 14 years of teaching at The Ohio State University, 1956-1970, where he was Professor of Trumpet, Director of the University Brass Choir, Associate Conductor of the Ohio State Concert Band and a member of the Faculty Brass Quintet. Among his numerous professional honors and awards, Suddendorf received Distin- guished Teaching Awards from The Ohio State University, Capital University and Western Michigan University. In 1975, he was elected to the prestigious American Bandmasters Association. He served as President of the Mid—American Conference Band Directors Association from 1982-1984. He received the Citation of Excellence Award from the National Band Association in March, 1984. In April 1991, the Delta Iota Chapter of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity at Western Michigan University presented him the Orpheus Award for significant and lasting contributions to the cause of Music in America. Suddendorf's professional affiliations include Phi Mu Alpha professional music frater- nity, the College Band Directors National Association, the National Band Association, Pi Kappa Lambda, Phi Beta Mu and Kappa Kappa Psi. He is an honorary member of the" Michigan School Band and Orchestra Association, and a member of the Music Educators National Conference. Attachment #5 PROPOSED BUDGET LANSING CONCERT BAND GRANT REQUEST LANSING COMMUNITY CABLECASTING GRANT 1. A cost quote has been obtained from "Future Media' (detail attached), which shows the cost of video production for a single concert event at approximately $2,000, which includes an edited video tape suitable for cable television broadcast. The Lansing Concert Band proposes using "Future Media" to do the video-tape production for four concerts: a. Dart Auditorium, 10/24/97 $ 2,000 b. Holiday Concert, Wharton Center, 12/12/97 $ 2,000 C. Young Person's Concert, Wharton Center, 3/3/98 $ 2,000 d. Dinner at the Pops, Holiday Inn South, 4/26/98 $ 2,000 2. St. Thomas Aquinas Church Concert, 2/13/98 $ 2,000 (this is a preliminary estimated cost) A major advantage of producing a high-quality video recording of this concert is that the St. Thomas Aquinas Church is fully equipped with professional quality television cameras and television lights and video recording equipment and facilities which would be employed in this video production. The actual video production would be be done by Ms. Lisa Whiting, producer/director of the weekly video-taping and broadcast of the Outreach Mass, and a camera/production crew who are professionally employed at several local television stations. This combination of facility, production equipment and production crew provides all the elements necessary to produce a high-quality video production of the concert program described above, which would be suitable for broadcast on Lansing public access cable television. TOTAL costs requested in be covered in grant $10,000 f a-u1Z. (raQV'r Qcpt. Phone N FQ�. Fax#3 2853 W.Josy!Toad • Oiacncs W 48864 a [1$A OM01t 517-337,5WO ♦ Fmc 5t7-=-5= b PRODUCTION! ESTIMATE ATE TO: KA= RQTff DATE: 10/01/97 EDUCATIONAL BXT YQN SEwxcE ESTIMATE NO: I423 $ARTNFJfiHrp FOR NEW EDUCATION PAGE NO: I aF 1 302 ERICKSON HALL EAST LANSING, HI 517/336-1.366 FAX, : 517/432-5092 12E: CHILD 's CONCERT, Wharton Center/Main Stage- March 3, 1998 FROM: Julie N. Bancroft This estimate is valid until 12/30/97. ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION '[SNIT COST This is a revised estimate based on your inquiry to videotape a children's� concert at the Wharton Center on Tuesday March 3, 3-998. The concert is to last approximately 50 minutes (10:ooa-jo:50a) . Per your request, I have included 2x cameras (one for a master shot and the other for close ups of instruments, musicians, the conductor and the audience) . We will produce a "live editn on location, which means that during the concert we will record live to tape by switching from camera to cameras to include wide shots Arid close ups. We will create ai-vple titling at the head of the master record tape prior to concert date. From this master, we will make standard Betacam and VHS dubs for your distribution at a later date. If you have any questions, please give me a call. 1 2 aR. Scout location 1 35.00 .00 2 1 HF 2 person w/ Betacam Ike ami k 70100 3 1 HF 2 person w Betaca)n Sony P �!- 600.00 600.00 P / y pkq- � 600.Oo 604.00 4 1 UN Digital A/V switcher 150.00 150.00 5 1 UN 4" Triple monitor 50.00 50.00 6 1 UN 8" monitor 35.00 35.00 7 2 UN Microphone: Unipoint W/floor stand 20_00 40.00 a I UN Microphone: Beyer w/floor slang 20.00 20.00 9 1 ON small cable package 25.00 25.00 10 1 UN Intercom system w/four headsets 90.00 90.00 11 I UN BCT-90MLA Betacam SP video cassette 78.00 78_00 12 1. UN PVW-2800 Betacam SP Video Tape Recorder 350.00 350.Q0 13 1 ** Expendables 25.00 25.00 14 2 HR Titling to tare 75,00 150.00 15 1 UN Production vehicle (+ mileage) 0.00 0-0 0 50_0 50.00 16 12 UK Estimated rowYdtrzp mlleacje 17 5 UN BCT-60 Betacam G DUBS 3 .35 420 I8 15 UN T-60 VHS DUBS w/sleeve 7. 0 1s ..0 I500 0 **SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS f* TOTAL 2,828.70 PLUS ADDITIONS: 1 HR 2 person w/ Betar.can Ikegami pkg. 275_00 1 HR 2 person w/ Betacam Sony pkg. 175.00 CLIENT ACCEPTANCE: date: (please sign and return in order to proceed) MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD loth FLOOR, LANSING CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair David Koskinen, Vice Chair Gregory Starks, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member OTHERS PRESENT Jack Jordan, Law Dept. r Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 Christine Timmon c7 -- Margo Vroman, Law Dept. -4 < x rn PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS Christine Timmon - Happy to be present at this committee meeting. IL COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from Darryl Burgess - Public Access Suggestions The Board decided that the letter should be forwarded to MediaOne. Clarence Green, Public Access Manager, is to be asked to attend the next meeting of the Telecommunications and Cable Advisory Board to discuss the equipment concerns from access producers. Member Schafer had suggested that possibly the Board may want to purchase some camcorder batteries for the Public Access facility. B. Letter from John Kerekes - Dissatisfied Customer His letter highlighted concerns regarding Fox Sports. This Channel is now back on MediaOne's line-up. Jack Jordan pointed out that MediaOne does not have a monopoly in Lansing, it is currently the only business to have filed a franchise agreement. Mr. Kerekes lives in Delta Township. The Board decided to forward the letter to Delta Township. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Awarding Grant Applications Karen Schmidt handed out a worksheet for members to use during discussions on bestowing of grants. She also handed out a sheet to show that all Community Access Producers, except Todd Ervin of God Rules, would be able to receive their full grant requests. This would still leave enough money to give the Lansing Concert Band the ability to have three concerts videotaped. Two concerts taped by MediaOne and one to be filmed by St. Thomas Aquinas staff. Christine Timmon stated the amount printed on the handout for videotape regarding her request was inaccurate. She was not asking for VHS tape, which was priced out, but in fact needed 3/4" videotape. Corrections were made to reflect her wishes. Member Bryanton moved that the following grants be awarded: Angel Aguilar to receive 60 minute 3/4" videotapes. 2 Y Alexander Bolt to receive 50 VHS120, 10 SVHS120, 6 60 minute 3/4" videotapes and $214.00 for studio props. Darryl Burgess to receive 30 SVHS120 videotapes. Lansing Concert Band to receive $4,000.00 for production of 3 concerts. Lue Lee to receive 24 30 minute 3/4", 12 60 minute 3/4", 24 SVHS-C120 videotapes and $810.00 for a back drop, logo and 2 microphone flags. Guillermo Lopez to receive 60 60 minute 3/4" videotapes and $350.00 for a painted canvas backdrop. Christine Timmon to receive 54 60 minute 3/4" videotapes. RSVP to receive 6 30 minute 3/4" videotape and $825.00 for a VHS portable color monitor and a VCR. This was approved 5-0. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: None. PUBLIC COMMENT.- Christine Timmon - Thanked the Board for the process and the opportunity to receive a grant. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Schmidt Channel 28 Manager Approved by the Board. Signed by: l?2-(" © /y 98 -------------------------- Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 3 P N S I ti. C �CHIGP Office of City Clerk Marilynn Slade City of Lansing City Clerk TO: Karen Schmidt, City Council FROM: Dixie Gilmore, City Clerk' s Office DATE : November 25, 1997 SUBJECT: 1997 Cable Advisory Board Minutes A review of our records indicates the following board minutes are not on file in the Clerks' s Office : No minutes of file The last board minutes placed on file with our office were for the meeting of (see above) . Would you please either provide the missing minutes or advise us of their status? Thank you for your cooperation in bringing this file up to date . /dlg 7/t? . � 7 K"/Y�, 2-9 P-/3 Ninth Floor, City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI 48933-1695 517-483-4131 517-377-0068 FAX �� RECYCLED PAPER AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, July 9, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. Tenth Floor Conference Room City Hall Marc Thomas, Chairperson David Koskinen, Vice- Chairperson Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Ida Bryanton, Member Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Member Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS • Letter from Kim Wilson, Ph. D. Re: Pricing Information for Deluxe Level Service & Smart Box needed 6. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS A Elect Officers B. Name for Channel 28 C. Grants 7. REPORTS A Chairperson B. Vice Chairperson C. Secretary D. Continental Cablevision Representative 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD MEDIA ONE 1401 E. MILLER ROAD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT F, Marc Thomas, Chair i David Koskinen, Vice Chair ��_► -; Gregory Starks, Member (arrived 5:45 p.m.) Beth Aldrich, Member C-3 Luke Schafer, Member C-3 a. } Ida Bryanton, Member m :: p � LJ OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne Mike Fitzsimmons, MediaOne Clarence Green, MediaOne Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEMBER BRYANTON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 19979 AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Grant Applications All grant applicants were present at this meeting. Individually, they were asked to come to the table and discuss their program, application request, and make open ended comments regarding public access. Videotape dollar amounts were verified as were additional items of request. Chairman Thomas began each interview with "tell us about your program". Some groups were asked more questions than others, but all had enough time to comment on the process. Member Schafer asked that Darryl Burgess' written comments, which were attached to his grant application, be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting of the Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board was set for December 3, 1997 instead of the regularly scheduled date of December 10, 1997. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from MediaOne regarding WILV Maureen Daughtery explained that WILV had demanded Mandatory Carriage Rights to Lansing's system. MediaOne had to make space available to them after losing in a court case. It was stated that WILV meets the stipulated criteria. A Supreme Court ruling is expected in June. No programs were taken off of the line-up due to this addition; they were just shifted to different channel numbers. A. Letter from Hugh Clarke, Jr. regarding Fox Sports Network Maureen Daughtery commented on the fact that MediaOne is still negotiating with Fox Sports Network. There is a very strong possibility that negotiations will go well. She will give Mr. Clarke a courtesy call and update him on the progress. 2 Ida Bryanton asked for a Rebuild Update. Maureen Daughtery stated that fiber construction was finished in October. Multi- dwelling units will be the last to be hooked up. Rebuild in Delta Township is at least one month behind schedule. Jack Jordan asked how much the addition of Fox Sports Network will cost subscribers. Maureen Daughtery stated that subscribers may expect a rate increase across the board with all cable companies in January. The reinstatement of Fox Sports will be added to the whole equation. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: Maureen Daughtery introduced Mike Fitzsimmons who is MediaOne's Programming Director for the state of Michigan. She stated that he was present to answer any programming questions which Board members may have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Darryl Burgess - Thanked the Board for taking the time to review applications. Public Access Producers appreciate the grants that they receive. He asked the Board to take into account that many of the programs run 52 weeks per year. Therefore, when granting cable grants, he urged the Board to expand the time frame of compliance. Christine Timmon - Thanked the Board for the process and the opportunity to receive a grant. The diversity in the room is wonderful. The opportunities for Blacks is there, they just need to take advantage of them. Angel Aguilar - Thanked the Board members and told how much he enjoys being a part of Public Access. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m. 3 Respectfully submitted, Karen Schmidt Channel 28 Manager Approved by the Board. Signed by: Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 4 AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. MEDIA ONE 1401 E. Miller Road Marc Thomas, Chairperson _ David Koskinen, Vice- Chairperson Elizabeth Aldrich, Member ��, �� S4&+e- Ida Bryanton, Member Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Member 5-4STW Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER �t 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS OA�, 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from Media One regarding WILV B. Letter from Hugh Clarke, Jr. Regarding Fox sports Network 6. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS • Grant Applications -- Interview applicants 7. REPORTS A Chairperson B, Vice Chairperson C. MediaOne Representative 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN NOTE LOCATION CHANGE y I Q—, I&A T,,--o C.A- wa-A c� IUA--e- �_ ,� , - D\ eAr'— Ali Co booms Yi kit n LX c3 MediaOnesm f '--7C�irf I En This is Broadband. This is the way. �iGCI f7 October 16, 1997 �i'i 1: 04 LANSING CITY CLERK REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Marilyn Slade, Clerk 124 W. Michigan 91h Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Marilyn: This letter is to inform you that we will be adding WILV to our Lansing Rebuild channel line-up beginning October 28, 1997. As you are aware, passage of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act) re-instituted mandatory carriage of particular broadcast signals by cable systems. Subsequent appeals by the cable industry have failed with court decisions as late as Spring 1997 upholding the Must Carry rights of broadcasters. Therefore, under FCC Rules 76.55 and 76.56, WILV, a commercial television broadcast station, is entitled to mandatory coverage on MediaOne's system. In light of this decision, MediaOne will add WILV to channel 6 and move QVC to channe122. I apologize for the short notice, Marilyn. If you have any questions with regard to this issue,please feel free to contact me at (517) 394-9170. With kind regard, Maureen Daugherty Corporate Affairs Manager Corporate Affairs 1401 East Miller Road Lansing,MI 4891 1 tel/51 7-394-91 70 fax/51 7-394-6656 r� t REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND 1 .0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD HUGH BARRINGTON CLARKE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 109 W.MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 1025 1997 LANSING,MICHIGAN 48933 TELEPHONE 517/487-1401 Lyhl;: ;'� FACSIMILE 517/487-1404 October 15, 1997 Media One Marketing Dept. 14909 Beck Rd. Plymouth Twp., Mich 48170 RE: Fox Sports Network Dear Marketing Dept., As a residential subscriber to your cable service in Lansing, Michigan, I write to express my displeasure at not being able to receive Fox Sports Network on my cable system. I have spoken with your local service representatives about this matter and I have been told that to add Fox Sports Network to our cable package would cost customers anywhere from four (4) to seven (7) times the rate that the cost of PASS Sports would cost. I find this unbelievable given the fact that I have checked with a neighboring cable company (TCI Cable of East Lansing) and I am told that they have Fox Sports Network as part of their "Basic Cable Plus" service and this did not result in an increase to their cable subscriber's. Since the TCI Cable subscribers have not seen an increase with this service why would your subscribers. I am angry that this service has not been added given the fact that we will miss approximately 25-30 Detroit Piston games and an equal number of Detroit Red Wing Games. Please be advised that I will be looking into alternative cable systems such as Direct TV and if they carry the Fox Sports Network, I will cancel my 'Smart Box' subscription with your company and so will the 10 other friend that I have spoken with. At that point we will each tell other subscribers and the message will be out. rs Tr ly, gh . Clarke, Jr. MediaOne M This is Broadband,This is the way, f�.17 Michigan government Contacts From.., Mike Haverland - Michigan Director of Public Policy g c � Change of :address Please note that effective Monday October 27, 1997, the Mediaone Office of Public Policy will be moving to a new office location at: Somlifleid, MI 48034 Our new phone number will be: (2-48) 353-3905 Our new Fax number will be: (248) 353.0141 Michael DiMaria, Public Policy Manager for Metro Detroit will also be i'rucated at this new office. laugher°ty-Rosenbaum, Public Policy Manager for Mid. Mschigan, and Maria. Holmes, Public Policy Manager for Ann Arbor/Southeast Michigan will remain at their current locations. Maass call me directly if you have any questions. _, _t"' Cable Grants 1997 PRODUCER PROGRAM NAME COMMENTS ON APPLICATION REQ. AMT. PRG. LTR. Angel Aguilar Video Musicales no program description, no quotes $700 X Alexander Bolt The Naked City no quotes $600 Darryl Burgess Outdoor Moovies/Required Viewing $232.50 X Todd Ervin GRTV no quotes, religious programming $480 X Lansing Concert Banc 50th Anniversary Concerts $10,000 Lue Lee Hmong Lub Neej Television no quotes $1,500 Guillermo Lopez Raices De La Raza no quotes $1,150.00 Christine Timmons Jewels of Knowledge many things listed grant does not cover $$ X RSVP Yesterdays Youngsters $900 TOTAL $15,562.50 The amount to be given out for Public Access Grants is $10,663.00. PLEASE NOTE: THIS PAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE A GRANT REQUEST. IF ADDING A PAGE OF SUGGESTIONS AT THIS TIME WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE PLEASE INFORM ME IN WRITING. OTHER THAN GOING TO YOUR MEETINGS OR WRITING A LETTER SUCH AS THIS , WE (PRODUCERS) HAVE NO WAY OF COMMUNICATING OUR CONCERNS , AND HAVING BEEN INVOLVED WITH PUBLIC ACCESS SINCE 1979 , I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO COMMUNICATE. AGAIN, IF THIS LETTER IS IMPROPER, PLEASE TOSS IT ASIDE SO THAT IT DOES NOT SPOIL MY CHANCES OF OBTAINING THE GRANT. First of all , I AM very proud of my proctrams , however , my programs are part of a bigger picture . The public access channel is a great idea, and frankly, I wish more people would use it. Taken as a whole, there is -io doubt that an_v money MEDIA ONE spends on 16/37 is money well spent . It would cost THOUSANDS of dollars for MEDIA ONE to produce what is basically handed to them in a wide variety of programing produced by individuals who pick up the tab. Events , topics , issues , and other program choices that WOULD NOT be available to MEDIA ONE if again, individual producers did not take it upon themselves to volunteer their services . I have decided NOT to make an issue of last years grant money that DID NOT find, for whatever reasons , its way to the producers but instead found its way to the General Fund of the City. I am curious about the dollars involved and wanted to bring to your attention that several producers are aware that money intended to help them produce shows was not available last year . The good news is that MEDIA ONE has provided producers ;,with high quality SUPER VHS videotape recorders , as well as a beautifully simple to use SUPER VHS editing deck that pulls double duty as a standard VHS editing deck. As a producer, I want to go on record as thanking MEDIA ONE for this , and assure you that this allows for the creation of , again, hitch quality programs . You may have noticed that SUPER VHS tapes cost more than standard VHS tapes . A color TV costs more than a Black and White tv. The purchase of SUPER VHS equiptment is a great investment in the future of public access . The bad news is that some producers do not properly recharge batteries on the old VHS as well as the new SUPER VHS cameras . I must admit I have no idea how to correct this sitivation, other than to request that the Cable Advisory Board instruct MEDIA ONE to bu_v MORE batteries . I understand that even THESE new batteries could be misused but I must say_ that MANY times I have had to stair taping because my batteries have run out, usually when using the old VHS cameras . Most recently I was half way through taping a days worth of Oldsmobile ' s Birthday when I was forced to stop. Taping that event was so important to me that I took a bus downtown. On the bus going home , I was not very happy. My suggestion is for MEDIA ONE to buy more batteries . Again, I hope that making these suggestions at this time is proper. I hope that this does not ruin my chances of being_ able to Get a grant. In the RECOMMENDED POLICIES fler , it states that THE CITY MAY SET ASIDE A PORTION OF THE AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING. . .ADVERTISING AND/OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS TO INCREASE CABLE SUBSCIBERS ' AWARENESS OF PROGRAMS APPEARING ON THE COMMUI4ITY CHANNELS . I read this and was tempted to include a request along_ these lines , however, these words did not appear under the Permitted expenditures of City grant funds . I understand that this would involve work, however , I am suggesting that in addition to the Grants , that some of this promotional money be opened up for individual producers to help promote their shows . Producers could create 30 second spots that promote their programs . These spots could then be submitted to MEDIA ONE and if approved, run on cable . MEDIA ONE could obtain the funds needed for this with the availabe funds and, with a bit of effort, create a situatiion where public access programs had a chance to be noticed by viewers watching other stations . Or , the producer could seek funds for making_ posters to promote their snow. I don' t know how you'd go about this , and I find it a bit too much to ask for two grant cycles per year just for this , but please _dust think about it. Perhaps next year promotional activities could be added to the list of permitted expenditures . I understand that you may not be able to grant every request submitted to you by producers , however, I 'd hope that you spread the funds out so as to create the best programming choices . Please remember that producers give up a lot of their time and creative effort to their programs . I would hope that most of the public access producers requesting a Grant recieve at least a portion of the funds BEFORE those funds are dumped into the City of Lansings ' General Fund. I 'd like to thank Karen at 12/28 for dealing with this grant situation in a professional manner, as did those at MEDIA ONE. One last concern. is that in the past �roctucers have been given a years worth of tape and then been told they must use it all up in two or three months . Obviously that is not right , and I 'm sure that will not be the case this year . If any of you have questions about public access , please feel ee o„ contact me . Thank you again for your time . DARRYL BU GESS 485-2822 1407 PROSPECT STREET, LANSING, MI 48912 \o REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD October 31, 1997 r The Lansing Cable Advisory Board c/o City Council Lansing City Hall 124 W. Michigan Lansing, MI 48933 Cable Advisory Board: For a long time, I have been very dissatisfied with the product provided to the Lansing area by Continental Cable/Media One, because of its monopoly power and because neighboring systems like TCI in East Lansing seem to be a much better product. I've communicated my dissatisfaction with the company on several occasions and the only response is to be patient because things will eventually get better. A few weeks ago, my family and I had an opportunity to go to Torch Lake for the weekend, and I was concerned about television coverage for the Michigan State/Northwestern game in that remote resort area in Northern Michigan. Much to my surprise, I found that the Torch Lake area was served by Village Cable T.V. of Traverse City. This company served East Port, Torch Lake, Banks Township, Central Lake Township and Milton Township, all very small communities with nowhere near the population base of Lansing. However, Village Cable System provided its subscribers with virtually all of the basic cable stations supplied to Lansing subscribers by Media One and also added stations such as Court T.V., Turner Classic Movies, the Comedy Channel, FX and FXm, ESPN 2, the History Channel, the Travel Channel, VH-1 and Home and Garden T.V. Premium service included HBO and HBO 2 and Showtime. Surprisingly enough, Village Cable was also able to provide the lucky citizens of Torch Lake, et al. with Fox Sports Detroit as a basic channel, something that Media One seems fully incapable of accomplishing for its many more subscribers as either a basic channel or a premium channel. It was also my understanding that the basic cable charge from Village Cable was approximately $25.00 per month. I'd be most anxious to have the advisory board's reaction to this significant difference in product services for cable subscribers in Torch Lake as opposed to those in Lansing. I would also be interested in hearing yet again Media One's excuses about why Lansing is so ill served, particularly my Delta Township neighborhood. While I know there's little that can be accomplished to motivate 3 a w � b Y .. l':�� _ .. .� Media One in this monopoly environment short of purchasing a satellite dish and losing local news coverage, I nevertheless hope that there will be a time when Media One's monopoly comes up for review and true cable competition can be examined. Perhaps then Lansing's cable service will begin to compare to Torch Lake and Milton Township. Please keep in mind that cable powerhouse Village Cable of Traverse City as an alternative to the incompetent Media One when such a review takes place. Thank you very much. Sincerely, c� John Kerekes 216 Harpers Way Lansing, MI 48917 MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD MEDIA ONE 1401 E. MILLER ROAD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair David Koskinen, Vice Chair Gregory Starks, Member (arrived 5:45 p.m.) Beth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member P OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne cn Mike Fitzsimmons, MediaOne Clarence Green, MediaOne M Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 a' APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEMBER BRYANTON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER S, 1997, AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. ti0-1 .► ,� _�> ��;: i I d � I I I I i i I i i I �� � - i �. a � I i I I I I ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Grant Applications All grant applicants were present at this meeting. Individually, they were asked to come to the table and discuss their program, application request, and make open ended comments regarding public access. Videotape dollar amounts were verified as were additional items of request. Chairman Thomas began each interview with "tell us about your program". Some groups were asked more questions than others, but all had enough time to comment on the process. Member Schafer asked that Darryl Burgess' written comments, which were attached to his grant application, be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting of the Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board was set for December 3, 1997 instead of the regularly scheduled date of December 10, 1997. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from MediaOne regarding WILV Maureen Daughtery explained that WILV had demanded Mandatory Carriage Rights to Lansing's system. MediaOne had to make space available to them after losing in a court case. It was stated that WILV meets the stipulated criteria. A Supreme Court ruling is expected in June. No programs were taken off of the line-up due to this addition; they were just shifted to different channel numbers. A. Letter from Hugh Clarke, Jr. regarding Fox Sports Network Maureen Daughtery commented on the fact that MediaOne is still negotiating with Fox Sports Network. There is a very strong possibility that negotiations will go well. She will give Mr. Clarke a courtesy call and update him on the progress. 2 Respectfully submitted, Karen Schmidt Channel 28 Manager Approved by the Board. Signed by: A" Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 4 DRAFT MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD MEDIA ONE 1401 E. MILLER ROAD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair David Koskinen, Vice Chair Gregory Starks, Member (arrived 5:45 p.m.) Beth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne Mike Fitzsimmons, MediaOne Clarence Green, MediaOne Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEMBER BRYANTON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1997, AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. T�A90 ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Grant Applications All grant applicants were present at this meeting. Individually, they were asked to come to the table and explain their program, application request, and make open ended comments regarding public access. Videotape dollar amounts were verified as were additional items of request. Chairman Thomas began each interview with "tell us about your program". Some groups were asked more questions than others, but all had enough time to comment on the process. Member Schafer asked that Darryl Burgess' written comments which were attached to his grant application be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The next meeting of the Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board was set for December 3, 1997 to choose the grants to be awarded. Due to an expected lack of a quorum for a meeting on the regular date, this December 3 meeting was set. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from MediaOne regarding WILV Maureen Daughtery explained that WILV had demanded mandatory carriage rights to Lansing's system. MediaOne had to make space available after losing in a court case which stated that WILY meets the stipulated criteria. Supreme Court ruling is expected in June. No programs were taken off due to this addition; they were just shifted to different channel numbers. A. Letter from Hugh Clarke, Jr. regarding Fox Sports Network Maureen Daughtery commented on the fact that MediaOne is still negotiating. There is a very strong possibility that negotiations will go well. She will give Mr. Clarke a courtesy call and update him on the progress. 3 Ida Bryanton asked for a Rebuild Update. Maureen Daughtery said that fiber construction was finished in October. Multi-dwelling units will be the last to be hooked up. Rebuild in Delta Township is at least one month behind schedule. Jack Jordan asked how much this will cost subscribers. Maureen Daughtery stated that one may expect a rate increase across the board with all cable companies in January. The reinstatement of Fox Sports will be added to the whole equation. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: Maureen Daughtery introduced Mike Fitzsimmons who is MediaOne's Programming Director for the state of Michigan. She stated that he was present to answer any programming questions which Board members may have. PUBLIC COMMENT. Darryl Burgess - Thanked the Board for taking the time to review applications. Public Access Producers appreciate the grants that they receive. He asked the Board to take into account that many of the programs run 52 weeks per year. Therefore, when granting cable grants, he urged the Board to expand the time frame of compliance. Christine Timmon - Thanked the Board for the process and the opportunity to receive a grant. The diversity in the room is wonderful. The opportunities for Blacks is there, they just need to take advantage of them. Angel Augilar - Thanked the Board members and told how much he enjoys being a part of Public Access. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:45 p.m. 4 Respectfully submitted, Karen Schmidt Channel 28 Manager Approved by the Board. Signed by: --------------------------- Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 5 AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. MEDIA ONE 1401 E. Miller Road Marc Thomas, Chairperson David Koskinen, Vice- Chairperson Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Ida Bryanton, Member Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Member Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member L CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS A. Letter from Media One regarding WILV B. Letter from Hugh Clarke, Jr. Regarding Fox sports Network 6. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS • Grant Applications -- Interview applicants 7. REPORTS A Chairperson B. Vice Chairperson C. MediaOne Representative 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN NOTE LOCATION CHANGE MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:50 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair Gregory Starks, Member Beth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Terese Horn, Council Staff Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 Mark Clark, Public Service APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEMBER SCHAFER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13 AND SEPTEMBER 10, 1997, AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. :} III it -� Ii I PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS No Public Comment. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS None. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Grant Applications Ms. Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 manager, informed the Committee that some of the applications were not completed as necessary to make a determination on their grant request. There was concern expressed by some members regarding grants being given to anyone who would hire someone independently with the grant money and not use MediaOne to produce their program. There was discussion as to whether to make a requirement that MediaOne would have to produce all programs that are assisted by grants. Some members expressed that circumstances should determine whether or not they would have to use MediaOne. There was discussion, in particular, about Lansing Concert Band and GRTV's application and the circumstances surrounding their request. GRTV's application is to produce a religious program and Lansing Concert Band's request for a grant included use of an independent producer. The Committee determined that more information is needed to make a decision on some of the grant requests. Attorney Jordan noted Item 4-E in the Lansing Cable Advisory Board Recommended Policies concerning use of expenses. He explained that because of this policy, it is possible to give the money to the Lansing Concert Band as requested. Ms. Schmidt suggested that communicating with Mr. Munson, President of the Lansing Concert Band, could be beneficial because they may agree to use MediaOne or LCC for producing the show to lower costs. There was discussion about the grant supporting a worthwhile community event. Attorney Jordan cautioned the Committee members with respect to making a determination based on the content of a program. 2 ' -a i i '� II i I i , I i However, he also stated that the City cannot offer a grant to an organization that would produce a religious program due to the US Supreme Court determination of separation of Church and State. Concern was expressed by some board members about giving grants to applicants that live outside the City. There was a suggestion with respect to requiring a register of tapes by applicants for all tapes given to them through a grant. Ms. Schmidt expressed her concern with such a requirement because of the amount of time lost before the applicant receives their tapes. Ms. Schmidt is to write a letter to the applicants not having information necessary to make a determination included in their application and inviting the applicants to the next meeting at MediaOne. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: Maureen Daugherty informed the Committee that MediaOne is in negotiations with Fox Sports. If the negotiations are successful, MediaOne will be able to provide their customers with the Fox Sports Channel. Ms. Daugherty requested that the next meeting be at MediaOne at 1401 E Miller Road. She informed the Committee that the rebuild is two weeks ahead of schedule and that they hope to have the whole Greater Lansing area done by the end of December. Mark Clark, Public Service Department, made an announcement about a national telecommunications conference and presented the information to the Committee . OTHER 3 � � 1 i� - t. .. � � .. i f ill Attorney Jordan stated that he had compiled a packet for Councilmembers with all letters and documentation surrounding the declamatory motion to the FCC. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Terese A. Horn Senior Secretary Approved by the Board. Signed by: � Ga ------------------- Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 4 �, �i � - AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, October 8, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. Tenth Floor Conference Room City Hall Marc Thomas, Chairperson David Koskinen, Vice- Chairperson Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Ida Bryanton, Member Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Member -- s 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL ( i U 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '�� 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA I E S 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS 6. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Grant Applications -- Begin discussions on how to proceed and which applications/applicants need further information presented. 7. REPORTS A Chairperson B. Vice Chairperson C. MediaOne Representative 122, 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN �� i Date Committee �� — �� NAME AD RE S REPRESENTING PHONE po MILL 3?,3 & 7 - 013 / MEMORANDUM To: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ELLEN BEAL, VICE PRESIDENT, HAROLD LEEMAN, RICK LILLY, COUNCILMEMBER, PAUL NOVAK, COUNCILMEMBER, SANDY ALLEN, COUNCILMEMBER, HOWARD JONES, COUNCILMEMBER, JOAN BAUER, COUNCILMEMBER, TONY BENAVIDES, COUNCILMEMBER From: JACK C. JORDAN, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Subject: TELECOMMUNICATIONS 8L CABLE ADVISORY BOARD Date: October 10, 1997 For your information, the attached documents were discussed at the Telecommunications 8z Cable Advisory Board meeting on October 8, 1997. If you have any questions, please contact me. JCJ/mrr 8�'T 131997 LAW OFFICES FARHAT, TYLER & ASSOCIATES, P. C. SUITE 440 1400 ABBOTT ROAD JOSEPH A.FARHAT EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 `CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT GARY L t JAY PHONE (517) 337-3171 tADMITTED STATE OF FLORIDA MARKK E E.MAS ttADMITD STATE OF DELAWARE E.HILLS TO TOIL DDitLS FAx (517) 337-3153 TE February 26, 1997 d' Mr. Jack C. Gordon w , Chief Deputy City Attorney 'L/ City of Lansing 5th Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 - RE: Cable Television Service/Colonial Woods Dear Mr- Jordon: —� I have received a copy of your January 16, 1997 letter sent to the management of Colonial Woods at 4121 Okemos Road. I find the letter interesting in several respects . The first area of your letter that raises my concern is the identity of those persons receiving a copy of the correspondence . I note that Timothy P. Collins of Continental Cablevision is cited as a recipient . Is Mr. Collins in some manner a representative of the City? It has always been my understanding that Continental Cablevision was a for-profit business entity. What is the purpose of such correspondence being sent to the direct competitor of my client ECI if this is a city franchising issue? Has the city in some manner delegated Continental as a de facto city representative? The next portion of your letter that I find interesting is your third paragraph, and I quote : "the City of Lansing requires any person or company that provides cable television service in the City of Lansing to first obtain a franchise from the City. ECI has never submitted an application for a franchise for the City of Lansing and is therefore marketing cable television service improperly within the . City of Lansing- " (Emphasis added) This is a misstatement of the rights of ECI under rules promulgated by the Federal Communication Commission - I would draw your attention to 47 USC, 522 (5) , that being the definition of a cable service as an entity which provides service over a cable system. Pursuant to 47 USC, 522 (7) an entity providing video programming to subscribers without using any public right-of-way is not a cable service . ECI does not cross any public right of way in LAW OFFICES FARHAT, TYLER & ASSOCIATES, P. C. Mr. Jack Gordon Page 2 February 26 , 1997 its delivery of programming. By virtue of same, ECI does not fall into a category that is subject to the Lansing City Franchise ordinance, i .e. , Chapter 810, section 810 . 02 (a) . Any attempt to enforce this statute against entities providing service excluded from the definition of cable system by the federal statutes would be overbroad. Such an action would be subject to a narrowing by court action. Much like a system run by a direct broadcasting satellite service, ECI is not currently made subject to your regulations. As a sidenote you might be interested to know that this matter is currently before the FCC for a final review, see attached Exhibit A. All indications are that ECI ' s position will be upheld. If you have any real concern about this matter, please feel free to contact our Washington counsel Ms. Deborah Costlow. The City' s action taken in concert with Continental Cablevision, appears to be very close to the tort of interference with the business expectancy of ECI . My client is a small enterprise and does not wish to engage in a lengthy and costly dispute with the City. Still, should you continue such actions we will seek an injunction and damages . ECI would further demand that the City transmit a letter to Colonial Woods indicating that your position is not as clear cut as asserted in your January 16 letter. This would be the appropriate action to mitigate with the misstatements of law contained in that letter. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Very truly yours , FXRHAT, TYLEP,?& ASS CIATES, P. C. J 1Thomas Todd JTT/mjt Cc - Colonial Woods ECI �N S I ^` .. c City of-IsansvW c H ` t Office of the City Attorney James D.Smiertka B11lle J.O'Berry City Attorncy Assistant City Attorncy Melvin S.McWWiams timothy M.Perrone Chief Assistant City Attorncy Assistant City Attorncy John M.Roberts,Jr. Wm."Burt"Burleson Sr.Assistant City Attorncy Assodatc City Attorncy Brian W.Bcves Febru Jack C.Jordan Assistant City AttorncyC1Y 27, 1997 Assoaatc City Attorncy Greater Lansing Apartment Association P.O. Box 873 East Lansing, MI 48826-0873 Re: Cable Television Service Dear Sir/Madam: Recently, our office received a report that your multi-unit dwelling was contacted by Entertainment Connections, Inc., (ECI) to solicit cable television service. The Lansing City Ordinance, Chapter 810, Section 810.02(a) defines cable television service as: "the business in whole or in part, of receiving, directly or indirectly, over the air or otherwise, and transmitting, retransmitting, amplifying or otherwise modifying programs and other signals and transmission broadcast or otherwise provided by one or more television or radio stations or by any other provider of such signals, programs or transmissions, and originating non-voice and voice signals and redistributing such signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public located in the City who pay for such service." The City of Lansing requires any person or company that provides a cable television service in the City of Lansing to first obtain a franchise from the City. ECI has never submitted an application for a franchise from the City of Lansing and therefore, is marketing a cable television service improperly within the City of Lansing. Continental Cablevision is the only duly franchised cable television provider in the City of Lansing. If ECI or any other cable television provider has contacted you to offer cable television service, then we would appreciate it if you would contact us. Please contact Jane Dykema in the Public Service Department at 483-4455 with any information you can provide on this matter. Thank you very much. Co rd i l ly, ck C. Jor Chief De City Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: James D. Smiertka, City Attomey Lenora Jadun, Public Service Director Telecommunications Advisory Board —We're Ma jrg I t 9{apperc" N 5 /^ City of L ansinf H t G�� Office of the City Attorney James D.Smrertka BiWe J.O'Berry City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Melvin S.McWilliams Timothy M.Perrone Chief Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney John M.Roberts.Jr. Wm."Burt-Burleson Sr.Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney Brian W.Bcvez J l anu y 16, 1997 Jack C.Jordan Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney Canterbury Commons 4590 Seaway Drive Lansing, MI 48911 Re: Cable Television Service Dear Sir/Madam: Recently, our office received a report that your multi-unit dwelling was contacted by Entertainment Connections, Inc., (Ea) to solicit cable television service. The Lansing City Ordinance, Chapter 810, Section 810.02(a) defines cable television service as: "the business in whole or in part, of receiving, directly or indirectly, over the air or otherwise, and transmitting, retransmitting, amplifying or otherwise modifying programs and other signals and transmission broadcast or otherwise provided by one or more television or radio stations or by any other provider of such signals, programs or transmissions, and originating non-voice and voice signals and redistributing such signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public located in the City who pay for such service." The City of Lansing requires any person or company that provides a cable television service in the City of Lansing to first obtain a franchise from the City. ECI has never submitted an application for a franchise from the City of Lansing and therefore, is marketing a cable television service improperly within the City of Lansing. Continental Cablevision is the only duly franchised cable television provider in the City of Lansing. If ECI or any other cable television provider has contacted you to offer cable television service, then we would appreciate it if you would contact us. Please contact Jane Dykema in the Public Service Department at 483-4455 with any information you can provide on this matter. Thank you very much. Cordially, C J k C. Jordan Chief Deputy City Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: James D. Smiertka, City Attorney Lenora Jadun, Public Service Director ✓f['elecommunications Advisory Board Timothy P. Collins, Continental Cablevision �✓✓ / 6 \f 1. —We're 9l faiting!t--tap, OH CityOf.L Office of the City Attorney James D.Smlertka Baltic J.O'Bcrry City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Melvin S.McWilliams Timothy M.Perrone Chid Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney John M.Roberts,Jr. Wm."Burt"Burleson Sr.Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney Brian W.Bevez January 16, 1997 Jack C.Jordan Assistant City Attorney Associate City attorney Colonial woods 4121 Okemos Road Suite 10 Okemos, MI 48864 Re: Cable Television Service Dear Sir/Madam: Recently, our office received a report that your multi-unit dwelling was contacted by Entertainment Connections, Inc., (ECI) to solicit cable television service. The Lansing City Ordinance, Chapter 810, Section 810.02(a) defines cable television service as: "the business in whole or in part, of receiving, directly or indirectly, over the air or otherwise, and transmitting, retransmitting, amplifying or otherwise modifying programs and other signals and transmission broadcast or otherwise provided by one or more television or radio stations or by any other provider of such signals, programs or transmissions, and originating non-voice and voice signals and redistributing such signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public located in the City who pay for such service." The City of Lansing requires any person or company that provides a cable television service in the City of Lansing to first obtain a franchise from the City. ECI has never submitted an application for a franchise from the City of Lansing and therefore, is marketing a cable television service improperly within the City of Lansing. Continental Cablevision is the only duly franchised cable television provider in the City of Lansing. If ECI or any other cable television provider has contacted you to offer cable television service, then we would appreciate it if you would contact us. Please contact Jane Dykema in the Public Service Department at 483-4455 with any information you can provide on this matter. Thank you very much. Cordially, �j J ck C. Jordan Chief Deputy City Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: James D. Smiertka, City Attorney Lenora Jadun, Public Service Director t{Telecommunications Advisory Board Timothy P. Collins, Continental Cablevision -we"'aT,,�g!t-9IfapPen *H1,G City Of l GansnW Office of the City Attorney James D.Smlertka Billie J.O'Berry City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Melvin S.McWilliams Timothy M.Perrone Chief Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney John M.Roberts.Jr. Wm."Burt-Burleson Sr.Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney Brian w_Bevez Jccriucuy 16, 1997 Jack C.Jordan Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney Cherrywood Village Apartments 3029 Beau Jardin Lansing, MI 48910 Re: Cable Television Service Dear Sir/Madam: Recently, our office received a report that your multi-unit dwelling was contacted by Entertainment Connections, Inc., (ECI) to solicit cable television service. The Lansing City Ordinance, Chapter 810, Section 810.02(a) defines cable television service as: "the business in whole or in part, of receiving, directly or indirectly, over the air or otherwise, and transmitting, retransmitting, amplifying or otherwise modifying programs and other signals and transmission broadcast or otherwise provided by one or.more television or radio stations or by any other provider of such signals, programs or transmissions, and originating non-voice and voice signals and redistributing such signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public located in the City who pay for such service." The City of Lansing requires any person or company that provides a cable television service in the City of Lansing to first obtain a franchise from the City. ECI has never submitted an application for a franchise from the City of Lansing and therefore, is marketing a cable television service improperly within the City of Lansing. Continental Cablevision is the only duly franchised cable television provider in the City of Lansing. If ECI or any other cable television provider has contacted you to offer cable television service, then we would appreciate it if you would contact us. Please contact Jane Dykema in the Public Service Department at 483A455 with any information you can provide on this matter. Thank you very much. Cordially, 9-4-" J ck C. Jordan ief Deputy City Attorney ICJ/mrr cc: James D. Smiertka, City Attorney tenora Jadun, Public Service Director lecommunications Advisory Board Timothy P. Collins, Continental Cablevision 'We're-9l -)Lung I t-Mappen" 02/11/1997 08:05 5176990618 CONTINENTAL CABLE PAGE 01 M EMI BE R 3PvrLIGHT l- 4 10 / ECI Cable Television ECI has been providing high quality cable The ECI Basic channel line up provides over 55 television service to the Lansing area since 1979_ channels. Included are several channels those other The advent of fiber optic technology has provided cable companies charge extra for. By providing ECI ECI the opportunity to expand its service to nearly as an alternative cable provider you wl—give our any MDU wish over 100 units in the metropolitan -t i o get more value for their Lansing area. By using fiber optics directly to your dollar. Most consumers feel a choice of cable property, picture quality and reliability is providers is long overdue. unsurpassed. No satellite dishes or tower arc needed to offer your residents an alternative cable service. Giving your residents a choice;is easy. Just call ECI at (517) 333-8899 and ask for David Roberts. He will ECI employees are trained to provide excellent answer any questions you may have and send you an customer service. "they will always make a special information packet. effort to make sure your residents are completely satisfied. All employees are asked to follow this rule of thumb...Hnw woulcl you like this situation handled if you hvere the cu.,ionier� Newsletter News If you have any news to report from your facility, drop us a line and we will consider it for inclusion in the newsletter. We apologize for any incorrect information within the contents of these pages_ Please notify us of errors and we will make corrections. Thanks for your interest and support. The Newsletter CommlTree Greater Lansing Apartment Association P.O. Box 873 East Lansing, MI 18826-0873 404L Telephone: (5 17) 985-19 14 g892 7671 oats -I I payee Post-It' FFaaxpNote Fcom To [/l- Co. comeo- pt+one 0 Phone Fax fax 0 SENIJan. 3. 199711l 4: 30P14 CC MIDWEST CORP AFF�b a—ARK HILL PLC- No. 5948 20. l/l:m 2/ 2 T o : L AN S I N G S Y `^:0 F C:F EAzr LAt4lwl 617 337 t""'D P ENTERTARQvfl2Tr CONNMCTjQNS INC. Ulf NQVOXWU24 Ddim.s wr,225 End LcMIOV, aaX2-i - (517)33IAM&P=CS17)33.3� Vf w XT1�S"1' I ASt�L 0` ✓ , l Mt. 8Ab=Nei= ,tI) Fan L:asim r-Ok C tra nip / a 10.ARBOTT RD / PAST LANSING MI 4U23 Lcmr Mr.Net=% we baw i=,vod pant Lazy mflc ig ym balm'Fba E� Ca =CX;Z, laa, nos a 5=cfij=w giver its vice aavic=is Eaa iamisiaS. We rmp=daUy disawza, By no later maa J&umxy 10, 1"7, IKW ,+rill fk wish Ala Faiand cccac� s Pew &r Advismy Opinicn is le tftit to cocdm,our vierm that m francEi=it mtsailary. We wM and yva a copy d*4 p m- =Omn ik i,filed_ If you have uty questt _pl"give me i cwll_ 5in�naly, Da-,Ad Rab=s l--f~ P9st-K' N� 1fi71 1 PrKVIG 1 .a r MANNEL'GUIDE ., LANSING EA TON RAPIDS �LA SING Effective September 30, 1996 2 HBO 33 A& E 2 HBO 42 .A 3 E 3 WLAJ-53.ABC 34 Nashville 3 WLAJ-53,ABC 43 USA 4 WILX-10,NBC 35 Discovery Channel 4 WILX-10,NBC 44 Lifetime 5 WKBD-50,UPN 35 Educational Access—LCC 5 WKBO-50,UPN 45 E' Ent:rtainnent Television 5 LO/QVC 37 Public access 6 QVC 46 'AS`JBC 7 WSYM-47,FOX 38 Educational Access—MSU 7 WSYM-47,FOX 47 HSN 8 WOOD-8,NBC 39 Religious Access 8 WOOD-8,NBC 48 Home&Garden 9 WLNS-6,CBS 40 Educational Access—Lansing 7 9 WLNS-6,CBS 49 Nashville 10 WTVS-56,PBS 41 C-SPAN '� 10 WTVS-56,PBS 50 1,1nivision 11 WWMT-3,CBS A-1 PASS Sports 11 WWMT-3,CBS 51 BET 12 The Learning Channel A-2 Educational Access—MSU 12 Government Access 52 MT`/ 13 WKAR-23,PBS 13 WKAR-23,PBS 53 VH1 14 Cinemax 14 Cinemax ­31 - �__` �1'Nt 15 TNT 15 Educational Access-LCC 55 Prevue Channel 1 16 TBS 16 Public Access 56 Tener CldsSic 17 WGN-Chita o,WB A Basic Service g N Satellite Service 17 local Origination 57 .:cry Ch.acr?, 18 Disney = Select Service 16 Educational Access—MSU 58 !Ods:c 7V 19 Weather Channel 11111111 Premium Service 19 Religious Access 59 %oi;,edy Central 20 HSN 20 Educational Access—MSU 60--Cartoon Network 21 Lifetime 21 Educational Access—Lansing _ !\i LP.r'� 22 Nickelodeon 23 The Learning Channel 62 Sci F: 23 ESPN 24 TBS 63 fJ1i:CDWQ)S1C Z4 CNN 25 TNT 7�c, yv 25 USA 26 WGN-Chicago,WB 6 HB2 26 CNBC 27 Bravo 67 H603 - 27 The Family Channel 68 Stzr>_! 28 Speedvision 28 Government Access 29 The Golf Channel 69 Zgcore 29 Univision 30 Court TV 72 Viewer's Choice 30 MTV II 31 C-SPAN 73 Hat Choice 31 Headline News 32 C-SPAN 2 74 Continuous Hits 1 32 BET 33 ESPN 75 Continuous Hits 2 34 CNN 76 Continuous Hits 3 35 Headline Ne%vs 77 Action i 36 Weather Channel = Basic Service 37 CNBC o Satellite Service r Select Service ! 38 Nickelodeon 27 Deluxe Service 39 The Family Channel = Premium Service 40 Disney a Pay-Per-View, 41 Discovery Channe: Continental Continental Cablevision- cablevlsion, S TA Y T U N E Dw STAY TUNED- Volt will elljoy the a dval«tages whe li yoll Choose offer- 1" ' l . Neat and Clean Installation Prior- the pre-wiring your buildings we will consult with you to fired the most appropriate method of running our cables. We feel a neat, clean installation is j ust as important to our image as to },ours. Royalty royalty each month. Ilow much is your present cable Our property owners receive a service paying you? Royalties are based on monthly gross revenues and as revenues increase so does your percentage. We Give You an Important Edge Today's rental market is tough. Offering an exceptional set-vice such as ours gives you an important edge over your competition. Fiber Optics No satellite dishes or tower needed on your property. We can offer your residents up *to 110 channels through our. lber optic link. Excellent Customer Service Your residents will be treated to a level of customer service they have never experienced from a cable company. This improves your image as a property that wishes to provide quality to it's residents. No More Complaints The vast majority of people are unhappy with.their ces they despresent cable service_ tiariy are looking for alternative methods of receiving the serviire. Many turn to you for answers to their concerns. After providing your residents our service you will soon be swamped with compliments instead of complaints. We are a Locally Owned Companv We know what our customers want because tive live and work here. This gives us a great advantage in providing personable customer service. YOI-lr residents NVIII ellj ()y till (_01"Ving aclvajitageswhen you C1100sc to (41'er FICA . Best Channel Line Up Our Budget Service includes 55 of the best satellite and off-air channels available. For sports fans we carry ESPN, ESPN2 and PASS. All of the other cable companies in our area carry PASS as a Premium channel and charge an extra $10 - S12 per month for it. We also carry FOX-17 which carries the 'Blacked Out' Lions games. We are the only cable corhpany in our area to carry the new CNNfn and CNN International. Some of our other exclusives include SCI-FI, Turner Classic Movies, Home & Garden TV, History Channel, Comedy Central and Fit TV. Lowest Prices wer than any of the other cable companies in our area. Our rates are significantly lo e number of Continental is a little higher- but only carries half th channels and PASS is a Premium channel. TCI is much higher. In fact they are nearly S20 per month higher on most levels of service. We take the Stall out of Install The majority of our custor��_rs are hooked up the SAME day or the NEXT day. We make TRUE-Appointments Most other cable companies expect customers to stay home all or most of the day and wait for their service people to install or repair their service. We schedule REAL appointments so work can be done at THEIR convenience. No Convertor Box Needed for Premium Channels ers able Ready We don't 'scramble' our Premium Channels roof our customox to receive them.hem ave a CThis makes TV and/or VCR they will not need a convertor viewing and recording simple! Fiber Optic Clarity Our signal is sent through fiber optic cables direct to your property- Your residents will notice the improvement in Picture quality immediately. Our Employees have the Right Attitude y o out All of our employees are trained to be responsive to our customers needs. The .g of their way every day to help someone out. Logical Channel Order l line up we Put like channels together. This makes our As you can see by our channe -t .. -plc PAcif r to find! Our Current Channel Line Up 2 Showtilile 1'remiur11 37 A & E 3 6-Lansing CBS 38 History Channel 4 Disney Prernium 39 Discovery Channel 5 "rhe Movie Channel Premium 40 Learning Channel 6 41 MTV 7 47-Lansing FOX 42 VH-1 8 4-Detroit NBC 43 BET 9 WGN WB 44 CMTV 10 10-Lansing NBC 45 Nashville Network 11 Message Channel 46 PASS 12 53-Lansing ABC 47 ESPN 13 56-Detroit PBS 48 ESPN2 14 HBO 1'remiuin 49 Fit TV 15 50-Detroit: - UPN 50 CNN .16 -Citie" Mix Premium 51 CNN Headline 17 17-Gnend Rapids FOX 52 CNNfn/International 18 Travel Channel 53 CNBC 19 -SCI-F1 54 Weather Channel 20 20-Detroit WB 55 21 12-Flint ABC 56 TV Land 22 WTBS 57 E'.-TV 23 23-E Lansing PBS 58 Comedy Central 24 Family Channel 59 USA 25 Nickelodeon 60 Preview Channel 26 Cartoon Network 61 C-SPA N 27 62 C-S PA N2 28 QVC 63 International Channel 29 Home Shopping 64 Univision 30 Home & Garden TV 65 CBC 31 Lifetime 98 Adult Movies PPV 32 TNT 99 Special Events PPV 33 Turner Classic Movies 34 Nostalgia 35 American Movie Classics 36 MEU Our PackaVes and-Prices IL(u ",et Service 55 Satellite and Off Air Channels Best Channel Line Up in Town! S23.50 per month �lnitdarcl �crvice 55 Channels + ONE Premium Channel Choose From: HBO, Cinemax, Disney, Showtime or TNIC S30.50 per month or $33.00 per month with HBO DeluXe service 55 Channels + TWO Premium Channels & 1 Wireless Remote Convertor (if needed) Choose Two: HBO, Cinemax, Disney, Showtime or TNIC S37.50 per month Pren►tunl Service 55 Channels + THREE Premium Channels Plus 1 Wireless Remote Convertor ( if needed) & I Extra Outlet Installed FREE Choose Three: HBO, Cinemax, Disney, Showtime or TitiIC 544.50 per month Preniiti III-P1 .1:� SeI-% Icc 55 Channels + .all FIVE Premium Channels Plus Wireless Remote Convertors (if needed) & Extra Outlets Installed FREE HBO, Cinemax, Disney, Showtime & Tii1C 555.00 per month WINSTON & STRAWN 35 WEST WACKER DRIVE 1400 L STREET.N.W. 6.RUE oU CIROUE CHICAGO. ILLI NOIS 6060 1-9 70] WASHINGTON,D.C.20005.3502 75006 PARI$_FRANCE 200 PARK AVENUE NEW YQRK. NY 10166J 19] (202)371-5700 SULAYMANIYAH CENTER RIYADH 11495. SAUDI ARABIA FACSIMILE(2021 371.5950 43. RUE DU RHONE WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER +204 GENEVA.SWITZERLAND 202-371-5789 February 4, 1997 VTA MESSENGER Mr. William F. Caton Acting Secretary Federal Communications Commission Room 222 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 Re- Motion for Declaratory Ruling -R- Dear Mr. Caton- Enclosed is an original and five copies of a Motion for Declaratory Ruling pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules. Please file-stamp the extra copy and return it with the messenger in the accompanying envelope. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely, Stacey Stern Albert Enclosures cc Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau Thomas C. Power Assistant Division Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Cable Services Bureau BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In re Motion of ) Entertainment Connections, Inc. and ) Telecommunication Services Corporation ) for ) Declaratory Ruling Regarding the ) Applicability of Section 621 of the ) Cable Communications Policy Act ) of 1984, as amended by the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) SUMMARY Entertainment Connections, Inc. ("ECP') and Telecommunications Services Corporation ("TSC") hereby move pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules for a declaratory ruling that ECI and TSC are not required to obtain a franchise under Section 621 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 to provide the video programming services described herein. ECI currently subscribes to, and TSC intends to subscribe to, a service offered by common carriers whereby the video programming provided to subscribers of ECI and TSC runs through the common carriers' facilities before connecting to ECrs or TSC's facilities inside the private property line. The common carrier operates this service on a common carriage basis, complying with all Title II requirements regarding this service. As described herein, ECI and TSC are not cable operators and thus do not require a franchise; - since under Section 621 only cable operators providing cable service must obtain a franchise. ECI and TSC only control and own facilities located solely on private property. The common carver retains ownership, control and responsibility for its facilities_ Alternatively, ECI and TSC are not cable operators because the facilities of the common carriers are not cable systems, given that they do not provide video programming directly to subscribers. In any event, no franchise is required to offer this service because ECI and TSC unquestionably are not cable operators. TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION 4 I. ECI AND TSC DO NOT NEED FRANCHISES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CABLE OPERATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Facilities They Control Are Located Solely On Private Property And They Do Not Have Control Of, Or Bear Responsibility For, The Management And Operation Of Any Common Carriers' Facilities . . . - 4 B. In The Alternative, ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Common Carriers'Facilities Are Not Cable Systems Since They Do Not Provide Video Programming Directly _ To Subscribers II. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED TSC WITH TEE-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR ALD%ITED DURATION . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 III. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ECI AND TSC ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANNEL SERVICE, AND THE NEW YORK VIDEO DIALTONE TRIAL DECISIONS DO NOT AFFECT ECI'S AND TSC'S RIGHTS TO OPERATE WITHOUT A FRANCHISE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In re Motion of ) Entertainment Connections, Inc. and ) Telecommunication Services Corporation ) fo r ) Declaratory Ruling Regarding the ) Applicability of Section 621 of the ) Cable Communications Policy Act ) of 1984, as amended by the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) - MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RULING Pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules, Entertainment Connections, Inc. ("ECI") and Telecommunications Services Corporation ("TSC") hereby move for a declaratory ruling that the provision by ECI and TSC of the services described below does not require ECI or TSC to obtain a franchise under Section 621 ("Section 621") of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (the "1984 Act"), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. BACKGROUND ECI and TSC operate satellite master antenna television systems that provide video programming primarily to residents of multiple dwelling units CNMUs"). ECI operates in several 2 counties in Michigan and TSC operates in a variety of locales in North Carolina and South Carolina. Neither ECI nor TSC have ever obtained a franchise under Section 621 to provide video programming services. ECI subscribes to a service of Ameritech referred to as the Ameritech Supertrunking Video Service, pursuant to which the signal carrying the video programming that ECI provides to its subscribers runs through Ameritech's facilities before connecting to SCI's facilities inside the private property line. Ameritech provides the service to ECI on a common carriage basis pursuant to Tariff FCC No. 2 and Ameritech complies with all Title H requirements regarding this service. SCI's receipt of this service from Ameritech is governed by the"Ameritech Supertrunking Video Service Confirmation of Service Order," which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the "Service Order"). The Service Order, which is only a half-page excluding signature lines, demonstrates that Ameritech is not ceding to ECI any control of Ameritech's system, including the fiber through which Ameritech provides the service. There are simply no terms to govern such a transfer in the Service Order, or any where else for that matter, and there is simply no evidence, nor could there be, that such control is being transferred. Ameritech's fiber through which the service is provided is wholly operated and maintained by Ameritech, and any repairs or upgrades to the fiber are performed by Ameritech. Because Ameritech controls the fiber, in many instances SCI's signal is distributed to the properties served by ECI over a circuitous route that runs through one of Ameritech's central offices and takes the signal several miles out of its way. If ECI controlled the fiber, it would run the fiber in a direct route to the properties it serves The same fiber that Ameritech uses to provide the service to ECI can be used by Ameritech 3 to provide the service to numerous other video service providers. In fact, at the point where Ameritech's fiber connects to ECI's facilities -- which is inside the NIDU private property line -- Ameritech could use that same fiber to provide the same service to eleven other service providers. There are twelve strands to the fiber that connects to ECI's facilities. Only one of the those twelve strands is used by Ameritech to provide its service to ECI, and Ameritech would need to use only one strand apiece for each of the other eleven service providers. As stated above, Ameritech's fiber connects to SCI's facilities inside the MDU private property boundary. Ameritech's facilities connect to ECI's exterior distribution lines, which connect to SCI's interior building drop cables, which connect to the residents' television sets. ECI will allow any other provider to use its drops for no charge as long as the owner of the property has granted that provider access privileges. On the same basis, ECI will also allow other providers to-use its exterior - distribution lines when and if that is technologically feasible. SCI's facilities are located solely on private property and do not cross any public rights of way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on October 28, 1996, counsel for the East Lansing Cable Commission (the "Cable Commission") in East Lansing, Michigan informed ECI that the Cable Commission believes ECI must obtain a franchise in order to operate in the manner described above. The Cable Commission, however, did not consider any of the arguments set forth herein. Rather, it simply made a conclusory determination that ECI needs a franchise. In addition, on December 2, 1996, the Township Cable Communications Commission of Meridian, Michigan asked ECI to demonstrate why its provision of video programming services under the above-described arrangements with Ameritech does not require a franchise. 4 Unlike ECI, TSC has not yet entered into arrangements with any common carrier for a similar service_ However, TSC would like to enter into an agreement with a common carrier similar to the Service Order between ECI and Ameritech. TSC intends that the common carrier would retain total control of the fiber and bear complete responsibility for its maintenance and repair. If, as advocated herein, Section 621 does not require ECI or TSC to obtain a franchise in order to provide video programming services pursuant to the type of arrangement discussed above, TSC will initiate efforts to establish such a relationship.l' DISCUSSION I. ECI AND TSC DO NOT NEED FRANCHISES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CABLE OPERATORS A. ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Facilities They Control Are Located Solely On Private Property And They Do Not Have Control Of, Or Bear Responsibility For, The Management And Operation Of Any Common Carriers' Facilities Section 621 prescribes which entities must obtain a franchise from the local franchising authority prior to providing video programming to subscribers. See 47 U.S.C. §541 (b) (1). That section states that only a "cable operator" that is providing "cable service" must obtain a franchise. Id. Therefore, any entity that is not a cable operator has no obligation to obtain a franchise.11 A cable operator is "any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and difectly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable 1' For ease of reference, TSC's operation is occasionally referenced herein as if TSC is already operating in a manner similar to ECI although TSC has yet to enter into any such arrangements. Similarly, any entity that is not providing cable service may serve subscribers without a franchise. 5 system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system." 47 U.S.C. §522(5) ("Section 602(5)"). Thus, any entity that does not own a significant interest in a cable system or have control of, or bear responsibility for, the management and operation of such a system is not a "cable operator." Neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to the facilities they utilize or may utilize. More specifically, as shown below, (i) the facilities that are owned or controlled by ECI and TSC are not cable systems, and (ii) the common carrier's facilities that deliver signals to ECI's facilities and would deliver signals to TSC's facilities are not and would not be owned, managed or controlled by ECI or TSC. The facilities that are owned or controlled by ECI and TSC consist of the wiring and associated equipment located solely on the MDU owners' properties, acid connecting inside the - private properties to the facilities owned and controlled by the common carriers. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act"), a facility that serves subscribers without using any public rights of way is not a cable system. 47 U.S.C_ §522(7)(13). Since these facilities are not cable systems, neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to such facilities because an entity is only a cable operator where it owns, controls, or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable system. 47 U.S.C. §522(5)_ As to the facilities that are owned by common carriers, these facilities by definition are not owned by ECI or TSC, as neither entity is affiliated with the common carver. In addition, ECI does not, and TSC would not, control the associated common carver's facilities, or bear responsibility for the management and operation of those facilities. The common carvers' facilities are regulated under Title II and are available to any video programming provider on a non-discriminatory, common 6 carnage basis. At all points, including the point inside the private property line where Ameritech's system connects to ECI's facilities, Ameritech's facilities have capacity sufficient for use by at least eleven other video programming providers. Ameritech's service is in no way confined to ECI on an exclusive basis- Moreover, Ameritech's facilities were built by Ameritech, are maintained by Ameritech, and if there are any problems, are repaired by Ameritech. ECI is not allowed to repair or maintain Ameritech's facilities. In fact, ECI is not ever permitted physically to touch Ameritech's facilities. Thus, Ameritech's facilities are certainly not controlled, managed or operated by ECI. If TSC enters into a similar agreement with a common carrier, the same restrictions and conditions almost certainly would apply. In fact, the issue of whether ECI or TSC should be considered to control or manage the common carriers' facilities under the arrangements described herein is identical in all material respects to one of the issues resolved by the Commission in the Video Dialtone proceedings. Those proceedings related to the Commission's decision to permit telephon&companies (who at that time 7- were barred from offering cable service) to offer a new service called "video dialtone." Telephone companies were authorized to allow customer-progranirners to use the telephone companies' facilities to offer video prograrnnung_ The customer-programmers could provide either single or multichannel services over the telephone companies' facilities, which facilities would be available on a common carriage basis. In re Telephone Company-Cable Television Cross-Ownership Rules Sections 63 54 58, FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 5781, 5783 n.3 (1992) ("Second Report and Order"). The portion of the ruling in the Video Dialtone proceedings that is dispositive of the issue here is the Commission's finding that the customer-programmers did not need to obtain a franchise to provide their programming over the telephone companies' facilities. In re Telephone Company-Cable Television 7 Cross-Ownership Rules Sections 63 54-58 FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 300, 327-28 (1991) ("First Report and Order")_ The Commission reasoned that the customer-programmers are not cable operators because the customer-programmers neither own a significant interest in the telephone companies' facilities, nor control, or have responsibility for, the management and operation of those facilities. Id. The Commission found that a contrary interpretation would lead to. anomalous and impractical results. Id. at 327, 328 n.86. For instance, if the customer-programmers had to obtain a franchise then even "programmers who lease channels pursuant to Section 612 and the public, education and government entities which are provided with cable access would have to obtain a local cable franchise." Id. at 327. Moreover, "it would be extremely onerous for both programmers and franchising authorities to require all programmers using video dialtone facilities to obtain a local franchise." Id. at 328 n.86. In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ("the D.C. Circuit") affirmed this Commission's-'findings in the Video Dialtone proceedings. National Cable Television Association v. FCC 33 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("NCTA"). The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Commission's conclusion that customer-programmers of a common carrier video dialtone service are not cable operators, citing the following reasoning of the Commission: Where the "closed transmission paths" and "associated" head-end equipment are owned and controlled by different entities (as in video dialtone), and where different configurations of equipment would be used to move video programming from the different providers to the different customers, the concepts of a single, integrated system and unified control are not present. Id. at 74. The D.C. Circuit also made clear that the customer-programmer's control of the head-end equipment and responsibility for the program selection were not enough to warrant a finding that the 8 - customer-programmer has control of, or responsibility for, the operation and maintenance of the overall facilities themselves. Id. at 75. ECI is, and TSC would be, in the same position as the customer-programmers in the Video Dialtone proceedings with respect to a lack of control or responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the common carriers' facilities, and therefore neither ECI nor TSC need a franchise for their present or contemplated activities. Like the customer-programmers, ECI uses, and TSC would use, the facilities of a common carrier. Like the customer-programmers, neither ECI nor TSC own or would own any interest in the common carvers' facilities. Like the customer- programmers, neither ECI nor TSC control or would control the common carvers' facilities or bear responsibility for their operation or maintenance. As described above, ECI is not allowed to maintain or repair such facilities and a similar restriction would most likely apply to TSC. SCI's lack of control - is further established by the fact that Ameritech's fiber often does not take a direct route to the property served by ECI, but.=ead is first routed to one of Ameritech's central offices (often several miles out of the way) before going to the property. If ECI controlled or managed the fiber, it of course would have the fiber run straight to the property rather than take the circuitous route mandated by Ameritech's own uses of the fiber, including the provision of.phone service. ECI's and TSC's lack of control and responsibility for the common carriers' facilities cannot be distinguished from the customer-programmers' similar lack of control and responsibility for the telephone companies' facilities in the Video Dialtone proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission's decision in the Video Dialtone proceedings, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, is controlling here. Therefore, ECI and TSC do not need to obtain franchises simply to provide their programming over a common carrier's facilities- 9 Indeed, the arrangement Ameritech has with ECI was contemplated by Congress in the 1996 Act. Under the 1996 Act, telephone companies interested in participating in video markets are expressly authorized to enter into such markets in any one of four ways. 47 U.S.C. §571 ("Section 651"). One of the four options provided to telephone companies under Section 651 is for the common carrier to provide video programming on a common carrier basis. 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(2). That is, common carriers may engage in "common carrier transport of video programming." H.R. Rep. No. 458, at 172 ("Joint Explanatory Statement"). Such common carriage transport of video progranuning is permitted without the common carrier bearing the burden of the requirements of Title VI so long as the carrier complies with the requirements of Title H and Section 652 of Title VI. 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(2). Here, Ameritech represents that it does and w111 comply with Title II requirements, as well as Section 652, with respect to providing transport to ECI:- Therefore, the " service provided by Ameritech to ECI, which is undeniably common carrier transport of video programming, is expressly authorized under the 1996 Act. Permitting ECI and TSC to operate in the fashion described herein without obtaining franchises is also consistent with the pro-competitive nature of the 1996 Act. Congress' message was loud and clear: encourage competition in the telecommunications industry in virtually every manner possible. See Joint Explanatory Statement at 113 (Congress wants "to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition"), id. at 172 ("[r]ecogruzing that there can be different strategies, services and technologies for entering video markets, the conferees agree to multiple entry options to promote competition, to encourage investment in new technologies and to maximize 10 consumer choice of services that best meet their information and entertainment needs"). In light of the pro-competitive nature of the Act, companies such as ECI and TSC certainly should not have their efforts to bring greater competition into the video services market, which has long been dominated by the franchised cable operators, thwarted by the requirement of a franchise where none is needed. Requiring companies in the position of ECI and TSC to obtain franchises will discourage them from competing and most certainly erect roadblocks to municipal or country-wide competition in the MDU marketplace. This anti-competitive result would arise not only because of the cost of obtaining the franchise -- if obtainable at all, but also because of the regulatory burdens that accompany being classified as a cable system, which are often too great to bear for many smaller telecommunications providers. As shown by SCI's circumstances, which are quite common, the reality is that a grant of this Motion will greatly further competition and a denial of this Motion will serve to reduce competition. To compete effectively with franchised cable operators, alternative'providers must offer a viable �K- alternative to franchised cable service, including a relatively comparable selection of channels. ECI currently offers 60 channels on its basic service tier, so that it may present meaningful competition to the franchised operator in its markets_ With its present utilization of Ameritech's service pursuant to the Service Order, ECI is able to offer, cost-effectively, 60 channel service to properties of 100 or more units, thereby giving all but the smallest of MDU's a choice of providers in the areas where ECI operates. In contrast, if Ameritech's service were unavailable and ECI was required to build a headend on each property, it could only cost-effectively offer 60 channel service to properties of 400 or more units, of which there are very few in the areas where ECI operates. Thus, granting this 11 Motion is not only the correct legal result from a statutory construction standpoint, but as SCI's situation shows it will also promote competition in the industry. In sum, neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to the common carries facilities. Therefore, pursuant to Section 621, they do not need to obtain a franchise and the fact that the common carriers' facilities connect or would connect to ECI's and TSC's facilities inside the MDU property line only strengthens this conclusion. B. In The Alternative, ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Common Carriers' Facilities Are Not Cable Systems Since They Do Not Provide Video Programming Directly To Subscribers Finally, even if it could somehow be concluded that ECI and TSC would control or bear responsibility for the maintenance or operation of the common carriers' facilities, ECI-and TSC would not need franchises. As shown above, ECI's and TSC's facilities do not use any public right-of-way, and therefore ECI and TSC'are not cable operators as to those facilities because they are not cable -TM- systems. The common carriers' facilities also would not be cable systems because the facilities of common carriers are not deemed to be cable systems except where they are used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers. 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C).y Here, the common carriers' facilities are used or would be used only to transmit video programnung to ECI's and TSC's facilities, and not directly to subscribers. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in NCT& a facility transmitting signals from one cable operator to another that stops short of the subscribers' homes is not a cable system in the first place. NCTA, 33 F. 3d at 74. Moreover, there is no question that the common carriers' facilities do not and would not provide video programming "directly" to subscribers since Ameritech is not providing video programming directly to subscribers. 12 both facilities connect or would connect to SCI's and TSC's facilities, which then provide the programming to subscribers. "Directly" is defined in Webster's dictionary as "a direct line or way, without intervention." Here, there is intervention because SCI's and TSC's facilities take or would take the signal from the common carriers' facilities and deliver it to subscribers. H. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED TSC WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR A LIMTTED DURATION ECI has non-exclusive contracts with the property owners whose properties it serves using Ameritech's service. Therefore, any other video service provider may also utilize Ameritech's service and provide service to the very same properties as ECI with the permission of the property owners. The fact that ECI's contracts are non-exclusive, however, should not make a difference in the ruling to be issued here. Some of TSC's contracts may be exclusive but the fact of the matter is that all of " the analysis set forth above still pertains and TSC would not be a cable operator. The common carrier's facilities would still be offered to any programmer that wants them on a common carriage basis. Thus, other video programming providers could use the same facilities to provide programming to whatever properties at which the property owner grants access. Moreover, TSC would not control, maintain or have responsibility for those facilities in any way_ Therefore, TSC would not be a cable operator with respect to those facilities. III THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ECI AND TSC ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANNEL—SERVICE, AND THE NEW YORK VIDEO DIALTONE TRIAL DECISIONS DO NOT AFFECT ECI'S AND TSC'S RIGHTS TO OPERATE WITHOUT A FRANCHISE ECFs and TSC's position herein is not affected by the Commission's previous discussions with respect to Channel Service or by the Commission's decision in In re Application of New York 13 Telephone Company--for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended to ConstrugL Operate Own and Maintain. Facilities and Equipment to Test Video Dialtone Service in Portions of New York Cit , 8 FCC Rcd. 4325 (1993) (the "New York Video Dialtone Trial"). Channel Service is the provision on a private carrier basis by a local telephone company of video transport services to a franchised cable operator from the cable operator's headend to the subscriber's premises. See In re Telephone Company-Cable Television Cross Ownership Rules Sections 63 54-58, FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 5781, 5787 n.21 (1992) ("Second Report and Order"). While it has generally been accepted that where a cable operator is using Channel Service it needs a franchise,'-'Channel Service is readily distinguishable from the situation here. With Channel Service, the cable operator does not use public facilities of the telephone company on a common carrier basis. See NCTA, 33 F.3d at 75. Channel Service facilities are deployed for the exclusive use of the franchised cable operator wlto therefore has the right to exclude all others from the channel capacity that it has leased. Indeed, in contrast to ECI which can be one of twelve entities to use the same fiber, when the cable operator leases the common carriers' facilities under Channel Service , there is no non-leased space left available on those facilities for any other provider to reach the same subscribers. See Id.; In re Application of New York Telephone Company, for Authority Pursuant to+ Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended to Construct O erate Own and Maintain Facilities and Equipment to Test Video Dialtone Service in Portions of New York Ci , Order on Reconsideration 10 FCC Rcd. 11548, 11552 n.18 (1995) ("Reconsideration of New York I/ This proposition, however, has rarely, if ever, been tested given that cable operators ordinarily have obtained franchises prior to entering into Channel Service agreements. 14 Video Dialtone Trial"). Here, in contrast, ECI does not and TSC would not have the right to exclude anyone — let alone everyone — from the common carriers' facilities, which facilities will accommodate multiple programmers. Moreover, with Channel Service, the franchised operators ordinarily maintain, and often control, the facilities, and therefore are "cable operators" under Section 621 and require a franchise. In the New York Vdeo Dialtone Trial, the Commission permitted New York Telephone Company("NYT") to operate a video dialtone trial with respect to three buildings in New York on which Liberty Cable("Liberty")was already providing service, including one building where Liberty had a bulk service agreement. 8 FCC Rcd. at 4325-27_ In that proceeding, NYT's facilities connected to Liberty's coaxial drops and Liberty agreed that for the term of the trial it would allow any other provider to use its drops as well_ Id. at 4328-29. Like Liberty; ECI has also agreed to allow all other providers to use its drops at no cost, but neither TSC nor ECI have an obligation to allow others to use their drops_' For two reasons, Liberty's agreement to allow other providers to use its drops for that video dialtone trial does not mandate that ECI and TSC must do the same here_ First, the analysis set forth above, which shows that ECI and TSC are not cable operators with regard to either of the facilities they use or contemplate using, and therefore do not need a franchise, is not reliant on whether ECI or TSC allow others to use their drops on the properties. Second, the decision in the New York Video Dialtone Trial involved a request for a video dialtone trial and not the request sought herein by ECI and TSC. To the extent the Commission I' Ameritech's facilities connect to ECI's feeder lines, which connect to ECI's drops. ECI is willing to allow other providers to use its feeder lines at no cost once such use becomes technically feasible. 15 relied on the fact that all end users would have access to all programming on the video dialtone platform in approving the trial, that reasoning has no relevance here not only because the request herein is not a video dialtone request but also because the law has changed since the New York Video Dialtone Trial. The decision in the New York Video Dialtone Trial was rendered prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, and therefore could not and did not take into account the new provisions in the 1996 Act. One of those new provisions, Section 651(a)(2), expressly permits common carriers to provide video programming on a common carrier basis, thereby permitting ECI and TSC to use a common carrier's facilities, for which a franchise is unnecessary given ECI and TSC's lack of control over the facilities. 47 U.S.C. §571 (a) Moreover, Section 651(a)(2) does not require that the common carriage transport of the video programming reach all the way to the end user. That is clear from comparing Section 651(a)(2) " with Section 651(a)(1), which involves common carriers' use of radio-based systems to provide video programming. Section 651�a)(1) applies only where the common carrier provides its programming to the subscribers. That section.specifically states that it applies where a common carrier is providing video programming "to subscribers" using radio based systems. 47 U.S.C. §571 (a) (1) (emphasis added). In contrast, Section 651(a)(2) does not require that the video programming be provided by the common carrier all the way to the subscriber as it omits the phrase "to subscribers" used in ¢ Libertys inability to make the same arguments raised by ECI and TSC here may be a function not only of the fact that Section 651(a)(2) did not exist at that time but also because the facilities owned and controlled by Liberty would not have been excluded under the definition of a cable system prior to the 1996 Act to the extent those facilities passed multiple dwelling units that were not commonly owned and managed. See Liberty Cable Co v City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), affd, 60 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1262 (1996). 16 - Section 651(a)(1). In fact, by its express terms, Section 651(a)(2) applies whenever "a common carrier is providing transmission of video programming on a common carrier basis. Finally, as to ECI, whether any end user on the properties served by ECI will have access to all the video programming offered over Ameritech's system is only dependent upon the property owners giving permission to the video programmers to provide that programming. Simply because a given property owner might not permit some programmer to provide programming on the property owner's property does not mean that those that do provide programming need a franchise.!'That is, a property owner's decision as to whether a particular programming provider shall have access to the property owners property should have no relevance to the issue of whether the other providers who are given access need a franchise.9J '-' Section 653(a) (3) dis not alter this logic but merely provides that where a common carrier is providing video programming to its subscribers and is not doing so under Sections 651(a) (1) or 651(a) (2), it will be subject to Title VI unless it meets certain conditions. Section 651(a) (3) does not state that any programming provided by a common carrier under Section 651 (a) (2) must be provided by the common carver all the way to the subscribers, which if it were true, would be set forth in Section 651 (a) (2). Moreover, it was unnecessary-- and would have been unwieldy -- for Section 651 (a) (3) to restate that a common carrier operating under Section 651 (a) (2) does not need to provide the programming all the way to the subscribers. !' In fact, the same argument may be made on behalf of TSC even where it has exclusive contracts, in that but="for those exclusive contracts, all other video programmers would have access to the properties assuming they could obtain permission from the property owners. 4' Whine neither ECI nor TSC are seeking a Commission determination as to whether Ameritech and the common carrier that may ultimately contract with TSC need a franchise under the circumstances set forth herein it is clear that they do not. The reasoning employed by the Commission in the Video Dialtone proceedings and the D.C. Circuit in NCTA to reach the conclusion that the tamers of video dialtone do not need franchises is equally applicable here to demonstrate that Ameritech does not need a franchise. 17 CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, this Commission should rule that neither E to obtain a franchise under Section 621 to CI nor TSC is required provide service in the manner described herein. Respectfully submitted, Deborah C. Costlow Alan G. Fishel Winston & Stra m 1400 L Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Its Attorneys 18 E%EDUli 1 AMR171CX SUTERTRUNXING VIDE: ]EZVIC= :ASVS ) C09FIRMATION OF SERVICE OPXX �ustamer z rebv acknoviedgee its order of Ameritech Supartrunking Video Servi-e (ASVS ) . where available ( 'ftc Service') . Shown below it the Opticna: Payment Plan period of Service selected by the Customer ;the -OPP, berm, ) . :his Order is intended to •ervs as a confirmation �f �:lstonar' s salset:on of tha Service aad the OPP Term indleatac balo+r. Tht Servlcm is providad pursuant to, and controlled by, the terme and eond.itloag rat forth -n applicable tariff regulations with regard to the genera: service regulations, rates charged. termination liability, and the manner in which Service is prav:sioned and maintained (F. C. C. )Ia. Z) , The rd_ea and charges spatit:ad in the t,a=if! for the OPT Term selected bT i:uitomer will apply. The recurring monthly ratMS +ill be suD)rct co Ameritech initia_ad change, : Increases or decreases ] during the OPP Tam provided that the monthly rate shall not exceed tlAt in affect at the `-eKinning of -_he OPP Tern. if at tea concl..sion of tie Opp Teem, the - —J custorner ce:aina the &SVS without se.i:tine a new tern, t.,a Service vill automa_icallr be converted to awntta-to-ewnct Service. OFF Term Selected] . 12 Xanths �"F36 Atha 6101 Harsh Rd. 40 }{oaths Z5�0'467A�,Jf(�,C7 f �C>/o,rr� �` AMUITECH 19FOR}SATION LYDUSTRY (NAME OF CUSTOXU) ITIVICES ON 1Zffk,F OF nri:tZ2=cH•I:.l.zxo IS 1 C ignacure of Customer 51anarure of Ameritech PrinteaNaaae Printad Hama / /d/;/Al Cate Data City of L tins G Office of the City Attorney �.Smlertka Amey Billie J.O'Berry Assistant City Attorney to S.McWilliams I Assistant City Attorney Timothy M.Pmone Assistant City Attorney An M.Roberts.Jr. r.Assistant City attorney Wm.-Burt-Burleson Associate City Attorney Brian W.Bevez Assistant City Attorney March 26, 1997 Jack C.Jordan Mr. William F. Caton Associate City Attorney Acting Secretary Federal Communications Commission Room 222 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 Re: COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF LANSING OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT CONNECTIONS, INC., AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES Dear Mr. Caton.- Enclosed is an original and five copies of the Comments of the City of Lansing Opposing the Motion for Declaratory Ruling. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this filing at 517-483-4320. Sincerely, Ja C. Jordan Chief Deputy Ci y Attorney JCJ/mrr Enclosures cc: Meredith J. Jones Thomas C. Power Chief Cable Services Bureau Asst. Division Chief, Policy& Rules Division 2033 M Street NW Cable Services Bureau Room 918 2033 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 Room 406-I Washington, D.0 20554 Deborah C. Costlow&Alan G Fishel,Esqs Winston&Strawn Attorneys at Law 1400 C Street, N W. Suite 700 Washington,D C. 20005 -We're MalbirW I t7lappen" BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 IN RE: MOTION OF ) DA No. 97-353 . ENTERTAINMENT CONNECTIONS, INC. AND ) TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES CORPORATION ) FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE ) APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 621 OF THE CABLE ) COMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT OF 1984, AS ) AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT ) OF 1996. ) NOTICE AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF LANSING OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RULING JACK C. JORDAN (P46551) Chief Deputy City Attorney CITY OF LANSING, Michigan 124 W. Michigan Avenue Sth Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Dated: March 26, 1997 (517) 483-4320 SUMMARY The City of Lansing("City") opposes the Motion of Entertainment Connections, Inc. ("ECP') and Telecommunication Services Corporation ("TSC") for a Declaratory Ruling that they are not mandated to obtain a Cable Television Franchise for their cable television service. TSC and ECI are attempting to create a special and improper exemption from the franchise requirement pursuant to Section 621 of the U.S. Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 ("Cable Act"), as amended by the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, et. seq. ("1996 Act"). ECI operates Satellite Master Antenna Television ("SMATV") facilities, which deliver cable television service to their subscribers in multi-unit dwellings ("MUD") using fiber optic cable owned by a local exchange carrier("LEC"), that being Ameritech, to carry their signals into the public right-of-way. The City vigorously contends that the FCC should not create or grant for ECI and TSC such a special and improper exception from the franchise requirement pursuant to Section 621(b)(1) of the 1984 Act or 47 USC § 541(b)(1). ECI and TSC operate a "cable system" as defined by Section 602(7) of the 1984 Act, as amended by the 1996 Act or 47 USC § 572(7) and may not provide cable service to the City and its residents without a franchise. Further, the City adopts the arguments and comments that were raised in opposition by such parties as the City of East Lansing and Township of Meridian; US West, Inc.; and Alliance for Community Media, Alliance for Communications Democracy, and the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors to avoid repetition. 1 Finally, the City contents that ECI and TSC are attempting to circumvent the very essences of the Cable Act and 1996 Act that being to create a level playing field to enhance and promote competition in the cable industry. Further, they are attempting to obstruct the City from its duty of protecting its residents and maintaining the public rights-of-way. 2 I. BACKGROUND The City of Lansing is directly affected by these proceedings as it has the franchising authority,empowered by the federal and state statutes and local ordinances, to grant a cable television franchise to either ECI and/or TSC. The City has adopted a cable television ordinance under applicable state law and awarded a cable television franchise to Continental Cablevision, Inc_, which recently merged with U.S. West, Inc. It is believed that ECI operates a SMATV system providing video service to apartments or MUDS in Lansing, such as Canterbury Commons, Colonial Woods and Cherrywood Village Apartments. It is also Lansing's belief and understanding that ECI has aggressively marketed its services to owners of MUDs or apartment units located in the City of East Lansing, Meridian Township and Delta Township. It uses its existing SMATV facility as a head-end, whereby the video signals received are retransmitted over the LEC Ameritech system to apartments, condominium developments, and duplexes in the City for sale and delivery to individual subscribers in the City. The head-end facilities are on private property, as are the connections to the Ameritech system and the head-end and to the customers, but the signals transmitted over the Ameritech system, consisting of fiber optics and coaxial cables are located in the City of Lansing public rights-of-way. As a LEC of ECI's signal, Ameritech is not required to obtain a cable franchise from the City, as it is merely serving as a conduit for SCI's retransmitted video signals. H. ISSUES The issue is whether ECI is a"cable television system" providing "cable television service" subject to the City of Lansing's franchise ordinance as stated within federal, state and local regulatory scheme established by the Cable Act, as amended in the 1996 Act. 3 1111, ANALYSIS Municipalities, such as the City of Lansing, possess general police powers, to wit_ the public health, safety, and peace of persons and property within its jurisdiction or boundaries, as it pertains to regulating, using, improving, and controlling the streets, alleys, and public rights-of-way within its boundaries. Traditionally, dominion over the public streets, alleys, thoroughfares, and rights-of-way reside with the state as sovereign and in trust for the public at-large. No person or private entity may place anything above or below the streets without the express permission of the state. This authority invested in the state has been bestowed upon municipalities through state law. A municipals consent to use the public rights-of-way for a private use is known as a franchise. See McQuillian_ Mun Coro, Section 34.10 (3rd Edition 1970). The City of Lansing is a Home Rule City incorporated under and acting pursuant to the Home Rule City's Act, MCL 117.1, et. seq-; MSA 5.2071, et. seq. Pursuant to this Act, the City may provide in its Charter"[f]or the use, regulation, improvement and control of the surfaces of its streets, alleys and public ways, and of the space above and beneath them_ MCL 117.4(h)(1); MSA 5.2074(h)(1), The Michigan Constitution, Article VII, Section 29, it states that: "No person_ partnership association or corporation public or private- operating a public utility shall have the right to the use of the highways- streets alleys or other public places of any county. township, city or village for wires poles pipes, tracks conduits or other utility facilities without the consent of the duly constituted authority of the county town ip-city or village or to transact local business therein without first obtaining a franchise from the township city or village. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government- (Emphasis mine). 4 The Lansing City Charter, Article 3, Chapter 1, Section 3-101, entitled "City Council" states that: "The legislative power of the City is vested in the City Council. The City Council shall have the powers and duties provided by law to this Charter." (Emphasis mine). Further, in the Charter, Article 8, Section 8-101.1 it states that.- "The City may, as provided by law, exercise its police powers to regulate prohibit, or prohibit except as authorized by permit, license or franchise, any trade, occupation, amusement business or other tivity within the City." The City Council passed Ordinance No. 810. The purpose of this Ordinance is to "provide fair regulation of cable television service in the City in the public interest, to promote and encourage adequate, economical and efficient cable television service to the residents of the City, to promote and to encourage harmony between cable television companies and their subscribers and to provide for the furnishing of cable television system service to residents of the City without unjust discrimination or undue preferences or advantages." (See Exhibit A) Late December, 1996, Continental Cable Corporate Affairs Manager, Maureen Daugherty- Rosenbaum brought this matter to the attention of the City_ Continental Cablevision objected that the City appeared to be allowing another cable service to operate within the City without a franchise. The City began an investigation, which resulted in letters to the three previously mentioned MUDS located in Lansing, advising them that ECI was operating a cable television service without a franchise within the City's rights-of-way. (See Exhibit B). Further, it informed these units that the City Ordinance, Chapter 810, Section 810.02(a) defines cable television service as: "The business in whole or in part, of receiving, directly or indirectly, over the air or otherwise, and transmitting, retransmitting, amplifying or otherwise modifying programs and other signals and transmission 5 broadcasts or otherwise provided by one or more television or radio stations or by any other provider of such signals, programs or transmission, and originating non-voice and voice signals and redistributing such signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public located in the City who pay for such service_" (See Exhibit A). It was made clear that if ECI wanted to operate its service to Lansing residents it must apply for a franchise. Further, a similar letter was sent to the Greater Lansing Apartment Association after the City received a copy of the newsletter from ECI to this Association, dated February 27, 1997. (See Exhibit Q. The City received a response, dated February 26, 1997, from the legal representatives of ECI indicating that it was currently seeking a final review from the Commission on behalf of ECI (See Exhibit D)_ This was the first and only Notice the City received regarding their Motion. Lansing has no information regarding TSC_ A ECI AND TSC ARE CABLE OPERATORS The City of Lansing has read and reviewed the objections and comments filed with the Commission from the City of East Lansing and Meridian Township, U.S. West, Inc.; and Alliance for Community Medica, Alliance for Communications Democracy, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and adopt these arguments by reference as their own to avoid repetition. The well-grounded arguments presented in their analysis and comments are in perfect accord with the status of federal, state, and local law as it pertains to franchising and the City of Lansing. The law has been affirmed time and time again prohibiting any person or entity from operating a cable television system without first obtaining a local franchise. Local governments and municipalities such as Lansing are in a far better position to understand and assess the needs of its 6 community, subject to certain federal guidelines. HR Rep. No. 98-934, 98 Congress, 2nd Sess. 23- 24 (1989). As was explained within the arguments adopted by the City, ECI is operating a cable system as defined under 47 U_S.C. § 522(7). Section 602(6) of the 1984 Act defined the term"cable system" as "a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is providing to multiple subscribers within a community. . ." 47 USC § 522 (6). Section 522(7)(C)clearly addresses that ECI is using a common carrier, that being Ameritech, and that "such facility shall be considered a cable system. . . to the extent such faculty is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers." The 1984 Act itself clearly stated that this type of video distribution system required a franchise. ECI contends that if it has no ownership interests in the facility using the public rights-of-way it would not be considered a cable system; however, the Commission has already decided that the ownership of the cables and wires used in a SMATV system is not an issue and does not fall within any exception. B. ECI AND TSC ATTEMPTING TO AVOID COMPETITION With the signing of the U-S. Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government clearly stated that its primary goal within the telecommunications market was to increase competition with the removal of barriers of entry to new participants in the market. In removing these obstacles or barriers, the thrust was to level the "playing field" which would enhance and promote competition, improve the quality of the product and service to the customer, and hopefully, lower prices for the product and service itself. The City has not nor will it place obstacles or barriers to ECI's entry into the City's cable market. However, ECI is attempting to circumvent the Cable Act and the 1996 Act 7 with its strained interpretation of what is a cable system. With their request to be exempt from obtaining a franchise from cities like Lansing and East Lansing and townships in and around the area, ECI does not want to play by the established rules as other entities, such as Continental Cablevision, but wants the playing field tilted in their favor. The 1996 Act preserves consumer protection and municipal management of local rights-of- way or the requirement that cable operators pay compensation for use of the local rights-of-way, as long as those Ordinances are non-discriminatory. In the 1992 Cable Act, there was already a provision that prohibits a municipality from unreasonably refusing to grant an additional, competitive cable franchise. Lansing is very clear in its Ordinance that it does not prohibit any cable service operator in an unreasonable fashion. Thus, the non-exclusiveness provision contained within the Ordinance, which allows other cable operators an opportunity to compete for operation within the City. The City is interested in protecting public safety and welfare, insuring continued quality of the telecommunication services, and protecting the rights of the consumers within Lansing as stated within this Ordinance. Secondly, local public streets and rights-of-way are property held in trust by municipalities on behalf of the public that are paid for by taxpayers. Any private business that places wires, conduits or pipes over, on or under the public property as the local municipality is the landlord for the public, it is proper and right for it to be properly compensated for use of its property and to insure that it is being used efficiently and safely. Local management and compensation requirements placed on cable providers are not barriers to entry as long as these requirements are imposed in a non-discriminatory mariner. Therefore, any cable system operator must pay a franchise fee that the municipality imposes 8 or else it could be considered that the City is discriminating in its dealings with one cable company over another. Further, once it is established that ECI is-indeed a cable television system as defined under the 47 USC 522(7), then ECI must apply for a franchise within these municipalities as 47 USC § 253(c) states that: Nothing in this section affects the authority of a state or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunication providers, on a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a non-discriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. Pursuant to 47 USC § 541(a)(1), a municipality "may award one or more franchises within this jurisdiction; . . . except that a fi-anchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise." Therefore, under subsection (b) of this same section ECI may not provide cable service without such a franchise. The City and its residents have a significant investment in its rights-of-way. Municipalities are in a better position to understand the needs of the community and its residents subject to certain federal guidelines. Contained within the Cable Act and the 1996 Act are the Consumer Protection and Customer Service Rules. 47 USC § 552(a)which states that a franchising authority may establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator. The FCC has determined that local franchising authorities, such as Lansing are responsible for enforcement of the federal guidelines. FCC No. 93-145, N. 51.2. Who else is in a position to police rouge cable operators for the public unless it is the local municipalities? Therefore, ECI should be denied this extraordinary relief and obtain a franchise under the Cable Act. 9 IV, CONCLUSION For these reasons, the City of Lansing requests that this Commission should deny ECI and TSC's Motion to avoid the legal requirements of applying for a franchise as mandated in Section 621 of the Cable Act. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, r J C. Jordan (P 65 1) of Deputy Ci orney 4 W. Michigan Avenue 5th Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4320 10 FCC expected to scold but. uphold m Troy cable ordinance By Noclle Knox q-I Y- �7 latory battle being watched closely by At stake may be fees totaling$zo billion help cover the cost of maintenance and that those costs can be shifted to the tele- Detroit News Washirgton Rurrau municipalities across the country. a year nationwide, repairs along roadways. phone companies:' WASHINGTON—Troy's determi- Two people familiar with the FCC's The FCC has struggled for more than But Troy's 1995 ordinance required The challenge to Troy's ordinance nation to rein in the telecommurucadons decision said the regulators will let ayear to come up with a decision—and telephone companies to pay 5 percent of shows how far the lines between tcie- revolution by imposing franchise fees on Troy's ordinance stand for now.But the substantially weakened the edict it was its revenues in the city—or 40 cents for phone and cable arc blurring. companies is expected to be criticized by commission will issue a sharply worded originally expected to hand down in every foot of cable underground and 25 The complaint to the FCC came from the Federal Communications Commis- ruling expected to make it easier for March The draft of the ruling,which is cents for every foot of wire overhead. Tele-Communications Inc. (TCD, the sion this week,but survive the battle. phone companies to overtum the city being reviewed by the commissioners Under the law,Ameritech Corp. owes Englewood,Colo.,cable company that ,Telephone companies have raced to law in court. this week,could still change.The agency about 4S5o,000 a year,said City Attorney wanted to lay more fiber-optic cable in lay cables in Troy as competition for local 'The city would not be happy"to see declined to comment. Peter I.etzmann. the city.Troy officials,though,suspect- service has exTanded.But the city said the the FCC's proposed ruling,one person Troy officials say the city is trying to Troy officials estimate they spend xa ed TCI was seeking a back-door way to companies have ripped up roads, side- familiar with the plans said. keep from getting plowed under by rapid million a year on road and turf restora- enter the local phone service fray. walls and easements,and wants,to assess In late 1995, Troy passed the ordi- changes in the telephone industry that will tion,insurance and other related costs to "We smelled they were trying to pro- charges to cover some of the repairs. nance that would allow it to begin charg- let businesses and homeowners choose maintain the rights of way on Troy's 250 vide phone service through the back Cable and phone companies com- ing telephone companies an estimated the provider of their local calls just as they miles of streets. door,"said Jim Blitz,Troy's attorney in plained to the FCC that Troy's ordi- s75o,000 in annual franchise fees.It was choose among long-distance carriers now. "Our taxpayers are subsidizing prof- Washington. nance represents improper regulation— immediately challenged,as were similar Cable companies have been paying 5 it-makuig companies that are tearing up setting the stage for a high-stakes regu- laws in municipalities across the country. percent of their revenues to the city to our roads," Letzrnann said. "We hope Please see CABLE.Page 3C O u i. CD t3 co C G c�• y v. 0 U O C y u p ° rG l E Y t�J •� ° •fl •u, (U 2 a O ° U u u ;n 5 W .0 u .�° N ,n ° ;.:`•3 q H uu a v �U u oc� cb ou " > - U vocc �,5 0 yw a u �y OC13D� CD O U '>, U ❑ >,H ar1 '.. 07 �� Gy C ,`'". c-x.y r� 7 u •'- ou � on � G $ >� � ava 2N - '� E� [U, .Sp u � Y � JE r � � xA °° " f4 E u o� 0. E gyp '° y � 3 * rH,3e 00 O w, u >.". U w>����'3(���rz r X y.; �Ra<o ?'r l r ° a>ycd+ >° .o., >,•v�(3 t.c ' 'U " � � r.w .ln ° rei n > uiMIn [°ta q 8 :3 O> o ❑ S � iOy. y yau. 0 H O 1615 H' n s Op U CCD Q C 0 U U c3 aEU U QrJ 'C ° F. u U a I.C. .d O.r; vvi U ',�. o �T u :+ a .�G •� Q E ,I,i' yu � vuE oo > , Z U� o3u0y � p � uui ouncei� P9 i .1 C7 O G cC cd 4 CJ •� G � � a '.;�, ° yo r� u yolio.� � c�-- u ' c"i � oa �3 3 " ° -c0uE aV „Y3 z r" l •� p v cr. �°, CJ iOt= �e�o��^� oo ° c [~v"a U E o> c - 5 A v c a. ° u 1A�AI n x a > a a5 y c .� o E u S Q U ,. ca ° y u .a u •v C X ',� y U -O ,-�. U C'• U to U 1"" C �,,Uc U C ° G V cC'1 H v m G v. .— ❑ u U = aoy ' jT� o � � c ° ua a � u � 0y > �> � m M J �. c c a a s 6 6 September 29, 1997 FCC Issues Rulin in City of Troy Case Leaves Local Te ecommumiications Ordinance in Place. I y Mork Von Bergh and Barrie F. rather than right-of-way man- Tl agement. This may be of potential significance as local On September 19. 1997,the governments consider, adopt The FCC's decision is a narrow one, based on FCC issued its long awaited and implement telecommuni- ruling in the TCi(cablevision) cations ordinances and right- the specific facts of the case. As a result, the /City of Troy case,in which TCI of-way management plans. In requested the FCC to preempt the end,although the FCC has derision provides little guidance as to how the the city's Telecommunications left Troy's ordinance intact,the Ordinance.Although the deci- tone and language of the deci- FCC intends to approach many of the specific sion is generally a victory for sion reveals only a begrudging Troy,in it the FCC fails to rec- admission from the FCC that governments overnments have a legit- issues raised. ognize the distinction between gi- a city's exercise of its cable imate role in telecommunica- franchising authority and tions regulation and right-of- management over the use of its way management,and that the rights-of-way. The FCC seems exercise of that authority is requires any telecommunica- outside the city. The FCC nications service provider to view the process of issuing a consistent with the Communi. tions service providers using found that TCI and its support- including existing cable open permit to engage in construe- cations Act- the city's rights-of-way to first ers failed to demonstrate that tors, to obtain a franchise ( tion in the rights-of-way as a The FCC in large part obtain a franchise,if it is trans- Troy's ordinance prohibited or similar authorization befor function of a local govern- denied TCi's request and left in acting business in the city,or a effectively prohibited TCI or providing telecommunicatior merit's franchising authority place the ordinance, which license if it is providing service any entity from providing service. TCi argued tht telecommunications service in because it already had a rigl the city. Thus, the FCC con- to use the city's rights-of-we eluded that there was no show- under a cable franchise, Trc FAIR ing that the ordinance violated could not require TCi to obta, Section 253(a) of the Commu- a separate telecommunicatior nications Act.Section 253(a)is franchise. TCI also challeng( the barriers-to-entry provision the annual right-of-way fc Aram Page 5 of the Telecommunications Act. assessed by Troy (the servi( Although the FCC's ruling is provider's choice of 5 percent, from the importance of main- census and suggested ways to Other ma"M mostly a victory for Troy, the gross revenue or a per lines taining an independent Fed- achieve this goal including FCC did find that the city vio- foot charge of$.40 for unde eral Reserve system as a encouragement for all cities to In other actions the com- lated the Communications Act ground and $.25 for abov defense line against inflation participate in current oppor- mittee will be proposing reen- in one limited respect. The city ground facilities), and certa to the importance of building tunities to improve the census actment of a resolution urging had placed a condition on two other provisions of the ore strong cities as a foundation bureau's address list for their changes in federal law so that construction permits issued to nance. Other issues includ( for a strong country.The com- community. rural water and sewer dis- TCI for the installation of new the FCC's authority to revie mittee also raised cautions tricts don't use the law to or upgraded cable television or rule on the scope of a citN about the clarity of the view New L=l Wong Suggesfions enact impediments to munici- facilities in the city's rights-of- right-of-way manageme for the future saying;"govern- Released for Comment pal annexation and provision way. Because the city was con- authority, and the extent ment cannot remove all risks of full municipal services.The cerned that TCI might use which the FCC can preem from life";"the importance of Walter Kelly,Fishers,Indi- committee also passed a reso- these facilities for purposes the exercise of that authori, straightening things out now ana the Committee Advisory lution urging the NLC Board other than those permitted in The FCC declined to rule r is in order to have flexibility Council Representative of Directors to prepare educe- TCi's cable franchise,the con- these specific issues because, to respond to situations in the re ported to the committee on honal materials to be distrib- dition on the permits precluded believed, its other rulin year 2020 that cannot now be hiservice along with NLC uted at the Congress of Cities the use of the facilities for resolved the dispute betwe, imagined" to the statement Executive Director Don Borut for the membership on the telecommunications until TCi TCi and the city. that "we need to be careful on the National Advisory operation of the Social Securi- obtained any needed legal con- The FCC's decision is a nr. that we are making invest- Council on State and Local ty, Medicare and Medicaid sents to provide such service row one, based on the specie ments in the infrastructures Budgeting panel systems and the long range (i.e.,TCI needed tocomplywith facts of the case. As a resu of the future not the infra- composed of representatives importance of dealing with existing law before using the the decision provides lit) structures of the past" of eight state and local gov- these major programs. facilities to provide telecommu- guidance as to how the F( ernment groups to prepare"a Committee member nications service)- The FCC intends to approach many Census set of suggested budgeting Richard Bode of Plano, Tex- concluded that this condition the specific issues raised. T practices as a guide to govern- reported to the committee on violated Section 621(bN3HB1 of FCC did state,however,that The committee heard pre- ments wishing to improve recent actions of the govern- the Act because it intermixed a party challenges a local or serrations from Los Angeles their budgetary practices,but mental accounting advisory the city's cable franchising trance or legal requireme Assistant City Attorney Jessi- not as mandatory standard." panel on which he serves as authority and telecommunica- under the Act. that party h ra Heinz and Barbara Marti- He solicited the committee NLC' s representative. Com- tions regulation.This aspect of the burden of proving that t noff who directs strategic members and any other offi- mittee Vice Chair Maxine the decision is not. however, challenged ordinance planning for the Los Angeles cials to make written com- Childress Brown reported on expected to have much impact requirement is it prohibition Board of Public Works.They ments on the proposals her recent activities as NLC in Troy because the legal effective prohibition on en) illustrated some of the chal- through November loth to representative on the Census requirements with which TCI under Section 253ta 1,and 0lenges a city as large and NACSLB. GFOA,190 N. 2000 Advisory Panel and Vice needs to comply remain in it is not within the author diverse as Los Angeles faces Michigan Avenue. Suite 800. Chair Joe Brooks of Rich- effect. reserved t0 states and Im in promoting response to the Chicago. Illinois 60601. The mond.Va.outlined the begin- The case has received wide- governments under Sect)-, census and in turn gaining an text of the proposed practices ning of a national panel's spread notoriety because it 253(b)and 253(c). ■ accurate count of population can be found at the following work on the implications of raised a number of important which is so crucial to full web site location: the expanding field of elec- issues involving local govern- political representation and http//www-gfoa.org/naes1b. tronic commerce on state and men)authority to manage and Mark Van Bergh is n Wn: crucial funding flows. (For more information see The local taxation on which he will receive fair and reasonable tng/on. D.C. altorney who r, The committee passed a Weekly. September 8, 1997, sit as an NLC representative compensation for the use of the resented the City of Troy bef resolution reiterating NLC's 10) (see The Weekly, Sept. 15, public rights-of-way, and the the Federal Communical(( policy supporting an accurate p 1997,p10). ■ extent to which a local govern- Commission. ment could require telecommu- FCC expected kru,) PTM � D C?" e1 � � By Nock Knox 9— y 7 latory battle being watched closely by At stake may be fees totaling$zo billion help cover the cost of maintenance and that those costs can be shifted to the tele- DetroitNews Washington Bureau municipalities across the country. a year nationwide. repairs along roadways. phone companies." WASMNGTON—Troy's determi- Two people familiar with the FCC's The FCC has struggled for more than But Troy's 1995 ordinance required The challenge to Troy's ordinance nation to rein in the telecommunications decision said the regulators will let a year to come up with a decision—and telephone companies to pay 5 percent of shows how far the lines between tcle- revolution by imposing franchise fees on Troy's ordinance stand for now.But the substantially weakened the edict it was its revenues in the city—or 4o cents for phone and cable are blurring. companies is expected to be criticized by commission will issue a sharply worded originally expected to hand down in every foot of cable underground and 25 The complaint to the FCC came from the Federal Communications Commis- ruling expected to make it easier for March.The draft of the ruling,which is cents for every foot of wire overhead. Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI), the sion this week,but survive the battle. phone companies to overturn the city being reviewed by the commissioners Under the law,Ameritech Corp. owes Englewood,Colo.,cable company that Telephone companies have raced to law in court this week,could still change.The agency about$55o,000 a year,said City Attorney wanted to lay more fiber-optic cable.in lay cables in Troy as competition for local "The city would not be happy"to see declined to comment. Peter Letzmann. the city.Troy officials,though,suspect- service has expanded.But the city said the the FCC's proposed ruling,one person Toy officials say the city is trying to Troy officials estimate they spend$a ed TCI was seeking a back-door way to companies have ripped up roads,side- familiar with the plans said. keep from gettingplowed under by rapid million a year on road and turf restora- enter the local phone service fray. walks and easements,and wants to assess In late 1995,Troy passed the ordi- changes in the telephone industry that will tion,insurance and other related costs to "We smelled they were trying to pro- charges to cover some of the repairs. nance that would allow it to begin charg- let businesses and homeowners choose maintain the rights of way on Troy's 25o vide phone service through the back 4 Cable and phone companies com- ing telephone companies an estimated the provider oftheir local calls just as they miles of streets. door,"said Jim Blitz,Troy's attorney in plained to the FCC that Troy's ordi- $75o,000 in annual franchise fees.It was choose among long-distance carriers now. "Our taxpayers are subsidizing prof- Washington. nance represents improper regulation— immediately challenged,as were similar Cable companies have been paying it-making companies that are tearing up setting the stage for a high-stakes regu- laNvs in municipalities across the country percent of their revenues to the city to our roads," Letzmann said. "We hope Please see CABLE,Page 3C u O u u q u U T y end i l `u'b� a ° Ern- H ° •u � TH �2 J r t x t h �o '►vTOaa'�� •u o v u ° FEi 9 q5b U E-E .2 o > 'J is o En °pca :m° g C a r �u uo a�'i NCaSi 43 U " z J O a'Oi °� u� > CL O ai ° u un - vn:- #i a+ 41 a+ G >� .Ti 7 •p'�"j R, is C ycy0'b t" V > p CC ❑❑ C cd 0,•U P� 4. ... O O <E aJ"".+ C i O O C vo3yu OEe[i . `u �aE .4� o i0 ocE F._1 � � s wxc a. � a udwv, va, un o w � •.{ oup, 3y a � y �o `u' N3c°o �, � o o x u " 0U3 " uo � > ° ccian � ( _l vc ; o P � b = ° oa Ei E;.d U > °•'v c !~ oou Cca � � u � o � u .� 8e� wo � >' � Ociuuo ° " a ; o �+ v, v C cc:' a �.,, y O !~ .b ° 0 x, V O> F O rr. Rz U U 4. 4. ti y �• c ue� � F U .� F ❑ u u 3� " �v ' a� u o y v c 1. x an o ° >� - 3 a n o ou y u C,vlJ ! V tx @ate Svc ¢ ca aM Ou .Ei " con > nU Rtg �, ;=`}, _. I i 1 i X i _ I I i I 1 �� i� �, f .; :i U.S.Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program Announces an important conference Networks for People: TIIAP at Work Tuesday, October 28, 1997 at 9:00 A.M. Main Lobby U.S.Department of Commerce 14'h&Constitution Avenue,NW Washington,DC The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP)has been awarding grants to nonprofit organizations such as schools, libraries, hospitals, public safety entities, and state and local governments since 1994. TRAP projects promote the use of information and telecommunications technology to provide better health care, increase lifelong learning opportunities, and improve local government services. The "Networks for People"conference is an opportunity to discuss, in person, the work TRAP has been doing in turning the dream of an information society into a reality. Leaders in the public and non-profit sectors will discuss how they re- invented services using information technology. Representatives from the computer and telecommunications industries and the Internet community will talk about where we go next in building an "information society," and how we'll get there. You can talk directly with individuals who were the first to apply information infrastructure to community life and who understand the benefits, first hand. In addition,you'll meet and share ideas with people like yourself who are using networks for people. Live, online demonstrations of what's going on in the field will show you how it works. Who Should Attend? Community Leaders Arts,Museum&Cultural Leaders Education Leaders Rural Information Suppliers&Users Public Safety Officials Librarians Health Care Administrators State&Local Government Officials Federal Agency Officials Nonprofit Organization Staff Business Leaders&Entrepreneurs Industry&Association Representatives Telecommunications Professionals Social&Human Service Providers .........and YOU!! There is no charge for attendance. Seating is limited; register now! Open to public participation. More information will be available on the NTIA website closer to October 28 http://www.ntia.doc.gov For more information or if you have special requirements,please call(202)482-2048 or tiiap@ntia.doc.gov Note:Photo I.D.may be required to enter the building. To register for the"Networks for People: TRAP at Work"Conference fax this form to(202)501-5136 or(202)501-8009,or mail form to 1401 Constitution Avenue,NW,Room 4096 Washington,DC 20230,or call (202)482-2048,or e-mail tiiap@ntia.doc.gov(subject: Conference Registration) before COB,October 20, 1997 NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE PHONE FAX F AIL U.S. Department of Commerce FIRST-CLASS National Telecommunications and Information Administration CARRIER ROUTE PRESORT TIIAP - Room 4096 POSTAGE&FEES BY 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Permit No No NTIA .G-199 Washington, DC 20230 RETURN SER' ICE REQUEED �c�r * * * 3_DIGIT 489 Mur y L, Britton City 0f Lansing 124 W. Michigan Avenue Suite 32MI 48 33 Lansing, MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:32 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair Gregory Starks, Member Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member -- arrived at 6:15 p.m. David Koskinen, Vice-Chair OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Margo Vroman, Law Dept. Terese Horn, Council Staff Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 Mark Clark, Public Service APPROVAL OF MINUTES HELD ONE WEEK. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS No Public Comment. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS Letter from Donald Dryhan Re: Government Access Channel Availability to ECI Management for Colonial Wood Apartment Chair Thomas requested input as to what response should be given to Mr. Dryhan. Attorney Jordan updated the Board members on what actions are being taken to keep satellite companies without a municipal franchise from operating within the right-of-way of that municipality. A letter has been written to the FCC to prove the City's case that the City has a right to require that companies have a franchise with them and can determine and control who uses the City's right-a-way. A decision has not been rendered. The 1996 Telecommunications Act governs what carrying a signal is, what qualifies as cable, and preserves municipal control over the City's streets and highways. Attorney Jordan informed the Board members that he had already written a letter to Colonial Woods apartment and ECI Cable Service. He received a response from ECI. He explained how ECI's system works. He indicated that the City and cable company are jointly working together to prevent companies without a franchise from operating through their right-of-way. It is the City's opinion that companies without a franchise pulling in signals from these rights- of-way are operating illegally. He explained that ECI receives their channels by receiving their signal through Ameritech's phone lines through the City's right-of-way. Unless ECI complies with these regulations, the City has no interest in doing business with them. It was explained to the members of the Board that the City's government channel is provided by MediaOne as part of their franchise agreement, and it is controlled and operated by the City. It was also explained that the City could have multiple franchises, but ECI does not want to obtain a franchise with the City. The Board requested that Attorney Jordan provide a copy of the letter to ECI to the members. A letter will be written to Mr. Bryhan in response to his concern. 2 ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Name for Channel 28 The Board reviewed eight entries. Mr. Schafer made a motion to nominate CITY-TV as the new name for our government access channel. Motion supported and carried, 5-0. This matter was referred to the City Council's General Services Committee for their support and referral to Council and their approval. City Government Access Channel Their was a brief explanation with respect to the dispute over the primary election coverage on the City's government access channel. A discussion followed. Ida Bryanton arrived. The Board encourages the use of the channel by all departments of the City. Attorney Jordan updated the Board members about the Mayor's request for an opinion on who controls the operation. He explained that the opinion is in the preliminary stage, but so far the research indicates that the operation and control is subject to the Mayor's control not the City Council. The Charter offers three governmental units of operation: Number one, Executive Branch, Number two, City Council, Number three, Principal Shopping District. He reviewed the role of the City Council and Mayor governed by the City Charter. He stated that the Mayor has the highbred authority because he is the administrative head and the City Council is legislative. He is to provide the Board members with the City Attorney opinion when it is final. There was discussion with respect to Channel 28 Manager Karen Schmidt's functions and as to whether it conforms with functions of. 3 Ii I .. I i I .� the City Council. He further stated that City Council employees have to be tied to their legislative functions. There was discussion with regards to the content of the election program show. Ms. Schmidt informed the Board that the show is the City Clerk's program, and Channel 28 provides the services to produce the show. She further informed the Board members that the City Channel will host the election show for the November election. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: Ms. Daugherty stated that the construction portion of the upgrade will be done at the end of October, and the rebuild will be done by the end of the year. She explained a problem that occurred with the power supply from the BWL for the new system. She indicated that they did not meet many dates for power supply releases, but they have now made it a priority to get the power releases turned on. This has to be done before the system can be turned on. When everyone is on the new system, there will be a sweep to take off the old power wire. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Terese A. Horn Senior Secretary Approved by the Board. Signed by: ------------9 13 7 Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 4 i I .. AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, September 10, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. Tenth Floor Conference Room City Hall Marc Thomas, Chairperson David Koskinen, Vice-Chairperson,✓ Elizabeth Aldrich, Member ✓ Ida Bryanton, Member (p s i 5 CV11V - Luke Schafer, Member✓ Gregory Starks, Member k" 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS • A Letter from Donald Bryhan regarding our government channel availability to ECI Management for Colonial Woods Apartments 91- 6. V ON/DISCUSSION ITEMS CITKl V .ern- Name for Channel 28 B. City Government Aess Channel 7. REPORTS A Chairperson B. Vice Chairperson C. MediaOne Representative 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN& ,co �� z .. aE . . ', . �, ,. � � � . j •a ; d ` . j II it q J 1 � _ ,, � _ i II .y 1 l � � � .. l i ' l l l l l RECEIVED AUG 2 6 IV LAN8kg3 CITY 000h10L 2001 W. Mt . Hope Ave. Apartment 330 Lansing, Mi . 48910 City Council Pres .Beal , We recently sold our home of 47 years and moved into the new Colonial Woods apartments . The move made it impossible to receive the City Council proceedings as well 'as the coverage of State of Michigan meetings as carried by the government TV channel . The given reason is that this senior apartment unit is served by ECI- cable service. I have. spoken with the ECI management and was told that they would be happy to provide this.. service except, for the fact that Media is un-coopexative and will not extend the signals to them Many of the residents that I have spoken to . have expressed the same feelings and we feel the City .Council who control the operation of this service should see that the signal is provided to all city of Lansing taxpayers'. Sincerely Donald Bryhan eA2 copy to Mayor ' s office REFERRED TO CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BD I� r,. l �. /'� vo o � �/' '� �.�.7 `r`� � / �� tC ������' � r � c � E;���`� 5 ��� �' � �� ��� � `ff���� �S (��� ��S � �� t �� �, �� x�.� .� •* "��� RECEIVED R E C E I MAR 18 1997 91 MAR 19 � LANbING CITY COUNCIL REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND LANSING Cl�1' %LERK TELLECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD 313 E. Edgevood, #6 Lansing, Mi . 48911 March 12, 1997 Cable Franchise Authority City of Lansing t 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, Mi . 48917 To Whom It May Concern: i ards to the raising I am writing in reg of cable rates by Continental Cablevision. Their rates are already excessive, and there is no good reason for these higher rates citizens of Lansing- - you have done a disservice to the you have not done your jobs. Ray 0 visto !. g i i ,.• To: Cable & Telecommunications Advisory Board The name for Channel 28 should be changed to Lansing' s CITY-TV. Fwy iitl Let) City SEP 04 1W Information To LA &tG CjNCOtINCX You I hope you choose my suggestion. Thanks. Eric nney 200 W. Jackson Lansing, MI 48906 ph: 484-9269 "" �; "�. n ws �,� SEP It low r L r L vrto � Distributi* on : Jerry Boles Liza Sharon Bommarito Dave Lenora Jadun Bob Dave Tijerina Linda Greg Martin Delphine Joe Pandy Kecia Jim Smiertka Mayor Art Walker Martha Eric Reickel Steve Dennis Sykes Robert Swanson Pat Cook Marilynn Slade Doug Rubley ` Jill Rhode Other The attached items) is/are forwarded for your review and appropriate action. It is the Mayor's request that each department respond within two weeks from the date of receipt. When action(s) has/have been taken, please reply with an update. If you are unable to respond within two weeks, please notify us and indicate when you can respond. If you have any questions, please call 483-4141. Thanks, Mayor's Office Date: 7 1z F,2 Additional comments: ' ` W — Marsh&McLennan,Incorporated -- Marsh&McLennan Building =- 720 Olive Way Suite 1900 Seattle,Washington 98101-3899 Telephone: (206)224-0690 Fax: (206)224-0523 June 3, 1997 MARSH & City of Lansing M.CLENNAN Office of the Mayor F `. 124 W. Michigan 10th Floor City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 ^ l l I Re: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Replacement of Franchise Bond _ �rCJ lJr r 1�,1r Hartford Fire Insurance Company _. '�°.� 1t'd ._ Bond No. 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 Acknowledgment of Cancellation To Whom It May Concern: Continental Cablevision of Michigan is changing its name to MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc. effective April 30, 1997. In conjunction with this name change,a replacment of the Franchise Bond is being filed with you. A Franchise Bond,number U9000097-0153, issued by United Pacific Insurance Company, on behalf of MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit,Inc., is enclosed. Also enclosed is a Cancellation Notice for bond number 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 which was issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company on behalf of Continental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal and was effective October 1, 1993. We request that this cancellation be accepted effective April 30, 1997 to coincide with the effective date of the new bond. As evidence of your acceptance of this transaction,please sign the copy of the Cancellation Notice and return it in the attached pre-addressed,postage-paid envelope as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns,please contact me. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours/ U vl Krista M. Stromberg Surety Department cc: Alyson Buchanan,U S WEST, Inc. Jon Kreucher,MediaOne Enclosures FRANCHISE BOND Bond No. U9000097-0153 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit. Inc.-, as Principal, and United Pacific Insurance Com any, a Pennsylvania corporation 4 Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia PA 19103 , as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto _City of Lansing. Office of the Mayor. 124 W. Michigan, 10th Floor City Hall, Lansing, MI 48933 , as Obligee, in the penal sum of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($100.000.00*** ) lawful money of the United States of America, to the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we hereby bind ourselves and our heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns,jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, The above bounden Principal has entered into a written agreement with the Obligee commencing on which grants a Franchise to the Principal to construct, operate and maintain a cable television system located within said City of Lansing—. Principal has agreed to faithfully perform and observe and fulfill all terms and conditions of said Franchise agreement referred to above and said agreement is hereby made a part of this with like force and effect as if herein set forth in length. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That if the above named Principal, its successors or assigns, does and shall well and truly observe, perform, and fulfill its obligations as set forth in the above mentioned agreement, for which a bond must be posted, then the above obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this bond shall be subject to the following express conditions: FIRST: That in the event of a default on the part of the Principal, its successors or assigns, a written statement of such default with full details thereof shall be given to the Surety promptly, and in any event, within thirty (30) days after the Obligee shall learn of such default, such notice to be delivered personally or by mail to Surety at its Home Office, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by registered mail. SECOND: That no claim, suit or action under this bond by reason of any such default shall be brought against the Surety unless asserted or commenced within twelve (12) months after the effective date of any termination or cancellation of this bond. THIRD: That this bond may be terminated or canceled by the Surety by giving 30 days prior notice in writing from the Surety to the Principal and the Obligee, such notice given by certified mail. Such termination or cancellation shall not affect any liability incurred or accrued under this bond prior to the effective date of such termination or cancellation. The liability of the Surety shall be limited to the amount set forth above and is not cumulative. FOURTH: That no right of action shall accrue under this bond to or for the use of any person other than the Obligee, its successors and assigns. FIFTH: This bond to be effective May 13, 1997 . SIGNED AND SEALED May 13, 1997 . MEDIAONE OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT, INC. By: I v 144 Alyson M. BVchahan, Manager, Risk Finance and Insurance UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY By: Krista M. Strombe , Attorney-in-Fa This bond replaces and supersedes Hartford Fire Insurance Company Franchise Bond,Bond No.5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142,dated October 1, 1993 for Continental Cablevislon of Michigan. THE FACE OF THIS .. BACKGROUND ON WHITE PAPER RELiriNCE SURETY COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Del- aware, and that RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, are corporations duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called "the Companies") and that the Companies by virtue of signature and seals do hereby make, constitute and appoint Thomas J.Jochums, Lori Whiffed, Kenneth D. Houtz, Krista M. Stromberg, Patrick D. Dineen,of Seattle, Washington their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their behalf, and as their act and deed any and all bonds and undertakings of suretyship and to bind the Companies thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and sealed and attested by one other of such officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that their said Attorney(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of Article VII of the By-Laws of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY which provisions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: ARTICLE VII-EXECUTION OF BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS 1. The Board of Directors,the President,the Chairman of the Board,any Senior Vice President,any Vice President or Assistant Vice President or other officer designated by the Board of Directors shall have power and authority to(a)appoint Attorney(s)•in-Fact and to authorize them to execute on behalf of the Company,bonds and undertakings,recognizances,contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof,and(b)to remove any such Attorneys)-in-Fact at any time and revoke the power and authority given to them. 2. Attorney(s)-in-Fact shall have power and authority,subiect to the terms and limitations of the Power of Attorney issued to them, to execute deliver on behalf of the Company,bonds and undertakings, recognizances,contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof. The corporate seal is not necessary for the validity of any bonds and undertakings, recognizances,contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof. 3. Attorney(s)-in-Fact shall have power and authority to execute affidavits required to be attached to bonds,recognizances, contracts of indemnity or other conditional or obligatory undertakings and they shall also have power and authority to certify the financial statement of the Company and to copies of the By-laws of the Company or any article or section thereof. This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by far-simile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the Executive and Finance Committees of the Boards of Directors of Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company and Reliance National Indemnity Company by Unanimous Consent dated as of February 28, 1994 and by the Executive and Financial Committee of the Board of Directors of Reliance Surety Company by Unanimous Consent dated as of March 31,1994. 'Resolved that the signatures of such directors and officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or any certificates relating thereto by facsimile,and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such Power so executed and certified by facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company,in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached.' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused these presents to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this July 19, 1996. RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY l „4 RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY 7f�suL^' �,''oe .•V��� UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY dLIL `SEAL¢ ' RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY less it r~� ` r ft 4,1 9&2e. STATE OF Washington } COUNTY OF King } SS. On this, July 19, 1996, before me, Janet Blankley, personally appeared Mark W. Alsup, who acknowledged himself to be the Vice President of the Reliance Surety Company, and the Vice President of Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Reliance National Indemnity Company and that as such, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purpose therein contained by signing the name of the corporation by himself as its duly authorized officer. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. 0 BL qy ��Ga4Ostor NOTARY -31,•E- ul P(IBLIC = 91 12'29A7 t Notary kublic in and for the State of Washing n 0 F�FWASN���' Residing at Puyallup I, Robyn Layng, Assistant Secretary of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMP- ANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is still in full force and effect. +} IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this 13tky ay 19 97 I•y..o.,� 09,-4, Assistant Secretary � • . • • �PY-1,111IF-1 5 Mils]F1.1 11111,11"fA -.1'45 a[slit. M_M[eil111=b&ATjI NOTICE OF CANCELLATION THE HARTFORD HARTFORD PLAZA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED HARTFORD, CT 06115 Date: June 3,1997 Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 WHEREAS, on or about October 1.1993 the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety,executed its_ Franchise Bond in the penalty of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars($100.000.00*** )on behalf of- Continental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal,of 26500 Northwestern Highway. Southfield, MI 48076 in favor of City of Lansing_ and WHEREAS, the said bond, by its terms, provides that the said Surety shall have the right to terminate its suretyship thereunder by serving notice of its election so to do upon the said Obligee, and WHEREAS, said Surety desires to take advantage of the terms of said bond and does hereby elect to terminate its liability in accordance with the provisions hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY shall, on April 30, 1997 consider itself released from all liability by reason of any default committed thereafter by the said Principal. SIGNED, Sealed and Dated June 3. 1997 . HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ��' Krista M.Stromberg, ttorney-in- ACKNOWLEDGMENT Return to: Hartford Bond U/W Center P.O. Box 3615 San Francisco, CA 94119 Principal: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 Your Notice of Cancellation as set forth above is received. We have arranged to cancel said bond effective Date: CITY OF LANSING Agent: Marsh & McLennan, Inc. cc: Continental Cablevision of Michigan (now MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.) S-3335-B-PC Rev 11/95 4SURNOCB This bond has been replaced and superseded by United Pacific Insurance Company Franchise Bond, Bond No. U9000097-0153, effective April 30, 1997 for MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.. I, NOTICE OF CANCELLATION THE HARTFORD HARTFORD PLAZA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED HARTFORD, CT 06115 Date: June 3,1997 Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 WHEREAS, on or about_October 1. 1993 the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety,executed its_ Franchise Bond in the penalty of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars($100.000.00"' )on behalf of- Continental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal, of 26500 Northwestern Highway. .Southfield,MI 48076 in favor of City of Lansing_, and WHEREAS, the said bond, by its terms, provides that the said Surety shall have the right to terminate its suretyship thereunder by serving notice of its election so to do upon the said Obligee, and WHEREAS, said Surety desires to take advantage of the terms of said bond and does hereby elect to terminate its liability in accordance with the provisions hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY shall, on April 30, 1997 consider itself released from all liability by reason of any default committed thereafter by the said Principal. SIGNED, Sealed and Dated June 3, 1997 . HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Krista M.Stromberg,Attorney-in-Fact ACKNOWLEDGMENT Return to: Hartford Bond U/W Center P.O. Box 3615 San Francisco,CA 94119 Principal: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 Your Notice of Cancellation as set forth above is received. We have arranged to cancel said bond effective Date: CITY OF LANSING Agent: Marsh & McLennan, Inc. cc: Continental Cablevision of Michigan (now MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.) S-3335-B-PC Rev 11/95 4SURNOCB This bond has been replaced and superseded by United Pacific Insurance Company Franchise Bond, Bond No. U9000097-0153, effective April 30, 1997 for MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.. MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:40 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair Gregory Starks, Member Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member EXCUSED ABSENCE David Koskinen, Vice-Chair Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, MediaOne Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Terese Horn, Council Staff Karen Schmidt, Channel 28 Mark Clark, Public Service APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Starks made a motion to approve the minutes of April 9, 1997. Motion supported and carried, 5-0. i �� �.� :.. - - _ - _ � � 1 PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS No Public Comment. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS Letter from Kim Wilson, Ph D. Re• Pricing Information Ms. Daugherty, MediaOne, informed the Committee that they received this letter and tried to contact Ms. Wilson. She indicated that they left messages but did not get a return call. At this point and time, no verbal contact had been made. The Committee made a decision to send a reply letter to Ms. Wilson. Staff is to compose a letter for signature by Chairperson Marc Thomas. To be included in the letter: MediaOne received her letter and tried to contact her to explain but was not able to contact her directly. The supervisory did leave messages for her to call back. A recommendation that she call MediaOne and speak with someone directly. Letter from Marsh & McLennan Inc. Re: Continentals name change to MediaOne and their Franchise Bond It was explained to the Committee that the new company issued a Franchise Bond for the same amount of money; thus, the old bond was canceled. Attorney Jordan is to check and confirm that this Franchise Bond was signed off. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS Election of Officers Mr. Schafer nominated Marc Thomas for Chair. Mr. Starks nominated Dave Koskinen for Vice-Chair. Elizabeth Aldrich supported both nominations and made a motion to appoint Mr. Thomas as Chair and Mr. Koskinen as Vice-Chair. Motion carried, 5-0. 2 i w, ' 1;ii. Y - � 3 I II J II J _� �I I� ,.. IJ _ I� f I� II �' III ., II �I I ' li , •�.. �. Y` I I + � �. Name of Channel 28 Channel 28 Manager Karen Schmidt presented the Committee with an idea to have a public contest to find a new name for our channel. The Channel 28 name would be replaced by the winning name selected in the contest. There were discussions on how to promote the contest. The Committee decided to use the character generator to promote the contest and to have a very brief presentation by Chair Marc Thomas. The presentation will be at the City Council meeting in the Special Ceremony segment. There should also be a news release to the State Journal. Deadline for the contest will be the Friday, September 5, 1997, before the next Cable meeting. The contestants are to submit a written response that includes their channel name suggestion, their name, address, and phone number. Prizes recommended for the contest was Boarshead tickets and dinner tickets at the Blue Coyote. Grants Channel 28 Manager Karen Schmidt informed the Committee members that there is $4,363 to be given out in Public Access grants and $600 has already been given to RSVP. Last year tapes were not provided to Public Access Channels. There was discussion as to whether to store the tapes at MediaOne as it was discussed the previous year. Concern was expressed about the numerous Public Access Producers that use their studio and only the City of Lansing Public Access Producers should receive tapes. The grant process was reviewed by the Committee. Ms. Schmidt indicated that she will be sending out letters to the producers informing them that applications would be received. At the time applicants submit their applications, an information sheet will be given to the applicant. Applications will be reviewed by her to be sure that the applicant meets the criteria. The applicant would have to sign an agreement for the amount that they are applying for and 3 . � ,� .. �. I �, .. ,� _. � - � '� ' ,.. �,, � , .. �,i ,_ . for what purpose. The applications would then be reviewed by the Committee. It was suggested that applications be received throughout the fiscal year and the applications be reviewed at the time that they are received. Ms. Schmidt expressed her desire to have the applications submitted within a particular time-frame. There was further discussion about the criteria for accepting applications for Public Access Grants. Channel 28 will place a Press Release on the character generator. There was discussion as to forming a sub-Committee to review the applications and then forward them on to the full Board. This will be decided at a later date. It was determined that the deadline for applications for Public Access Grants would be mid-October. Ms. Schmidt is to report back to the Committee. Reports Chairperson: None. Vice-Chairperson: None. MediaOne: Ms. Daughtery stated that the rebuild is on schedule, and the construction portion is to be finished by end of October. The rebuild will be finished entirely at the end of the year. In the first quarter of 1998, the internet will be commercially available. Mr. Mark Clark stated that he received a letter from MCI Metro indicating interest with operating in Lansing. Attorney Jordan informed the Committee about a hearing that could jeopardize municipalities from receiving compensation for the public right-of-way of streets. As it is now, it is mandated by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that municipalities receive compensation. He briefly explained the circumstances and that he had written a letter to Senator John McCain requesting that he reject 4 claims made by cable and telephone companies. At the present time, he had not received a response. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Terese A. Horn Senior Secretary Approved by the Board. Signed by: --------------------9-13- 9 7 Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 5 i � _ f I �=r�. A I .. I AGENDA OMM UNICATIONS CABLE AND TELEC LANSING ADVISORY BOARD 5.30 P•m- A�'�t 13, 1997 -- Wedne5day, erence Room Tenth Floo��� Chairperson � � Marc Thomas, Vice- Chairp�n David Kosk n ine , 1VIem Elizabeth Aldrich, Ida Bryanton, Member ",, Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Me nib ember Dr. Gilbert Williams M � 7 � ,/��''✓ 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CATS' APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 4. PUBLICInformation for D PETITIONS Inform 5. MUNICATIONS AWilson, Ph. D. Re: P rt Box needed e Letter from1s rvice & Deluxe Le an Inc. Regarding Sm Marsh sh & McLennan, o MediaOne and their Letter from e Chang Continentals riam Franchise Bond 6. ACTION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS NameOlcers for Channel 28 GGrants 7: RORTS Cha irperson 0 e rsetative Vlcchairperson C, Continental S. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT 11. ADJOURN, � � 4T Date Committee / PHONE _ — REPRESENTING — - ADDRESS NAME 2l` (2 - l d — Ltgjo y 3 z t ilex' /c"%jc/program%. . .ilot.msu.edu&number=l2 mailbox:/o*7c/program%. • •y1�� - Subject: Continental/MediaOne poor business practices I C L 997 07:1 • 8 -0700 REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND I Date: Thu, 29 May 1 ,n k@pilot.msu.edu> TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORI From: "Kim A. Wilson" <wilson To: citycouncil@ci.lansing.mi.us, ebeal@ci.lansing.mi.us, BOARD clerk@61ansing.mi.us, mayor@ci.lansing.mi.us, mayorasst@ci.lansing.mi.us CC: wilsonk@pilot.msu.edu rom heir WWW The message below was sent to MediaOionne vto assureia email f that tMediaOne respon T reciate your act homepage . I will appreciate m concerns and in a professional manner reflective of expectations to y of the City of Lansing. r —1 Thank you Cn C Kim A. Wilson, Ph.D. 0 2327 Tulane Drive p 3549 MI 48912- Lansing ram- co m wilsonk@pilot.msu. edu o Date: May 28, 1997 This is to alert you to two disagreeable interactions onhMayu16, 1997 personnel following nihsWella hadloeceivedn of e two bdifferent brochures from In the preceding month which touted the new services and gave Continental Cable of Lansing channels by level and costs . detailed information on levels, complete, we called Continental Cab A few hours after installation was according to a flyer reecived in of Lansing (MediaOne as of May 13, current early May) to add Deluxe level service to our early that w (Basic+Select+Satellite) . The Continental rep would have to wait "at least a week, " that we could not add to our servi ce for until the rebuilt status was enaeraa ,increase computer . " W puter . " We had intended to add Deluxe level serve $1 .70/month, as indicated in the two brochures • request . We were told s and caed today with the same q We waited 10 day ll a SmartBox for an additional that Deluxe service would require seen 5 month. This came as a surprise to us since we dl would cost i $5 . 4 / lamed the brochures other than the fact that th The representative explained $1 .70/month more than our current levels . by s inan asterisk on the that the need for a SmartBox tlassociated with Deluxe level rate . h other Although superscript levels/packages, no such asterisk or other sup informati on about the Deluxe level information in our two brochures ! ! In addition, there is nothing in the prose in the two brochures which suggests a SmartBox is required for the Deluxetlevel, nor is it clear a remote control is rsgru�edureoistunclear about any costs of Further, the pricing in fact, a monthly installation of the SmartBox, nor if the $5 . 45 is, ••i�� �iN`'J9ram%. . . ilot.msu.edu&number=l2 mailbox:/c%7C/program%. . .ilot.msu.edu&number=.12 i one-time charge, nor if it includes the $1 . 70 for Deluxe level . the prices quoted add up to $5 . 20, not $5. 45 . Plus, In summary, our contact with Continental Cable unpleasant at the very least, having the appearance(or Mef dec e) has been unprofessionalism, or both. This is unacceptable, inom deception, a n, clearly deserving of your attention and remedy. I believe thematter Of sufficient gravity that I am also forwardinga co ter i to the Lansing City Government . COPY of this message I acknowledge that the quality of the new cable/fiber optic service additional channels are excellent . I will be pleased to respond to questions for clarification an You may have . any Sincerely, Kim A. Wilson, Ph. D. 2327 Tulane Drive Lansing MI 48912-3549 wilsonk@pilot .msu. edu -- nCs 1 )0 /0'7 (10. II. ,7 Distribution : Jerry Boles Liza Sharon Bommarito Dave Lenora Jadun Bob Dave Tijerina Linda Greg Martin Delphine Joe Pandy Kecia Jim Smiertka Mayor Art Walker Martha Eric Reickel Steve Dennis Sykes Robert Swanson Pat Cook Marilynn Slade Doug Rubley Jill Rhode Other The attached item(s) is/are forwarded for your review and appropriate action. It is the Mayor's request that each department respond within t o If weeks ou are unable toe of receipt. When action(s) has/have been taken, please reply with an update. Y espond within two weeks, please notify us and indicate when you can respond. If you have any questions, please call 483-4141. Thanks, Q� , Mayor's Office Date: / F� Additional comments: Marsh&McLennan,Incorporated Marsh&McLennan Building 720 Olive Way Suite 1900 Seattle,Washington 98101-3899 Telephone: (206)224-0690 Fax: (206)224-0523 June 3, 1997 City of Lansing MARSH &MCjJENNAN Office of the Mayor _ 124 W. Michigan i PrF1VF0 10th Floor City Hall L Lansing, MI 48933 Re: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Replacement of Franchise Bond Hartford Fire Insurance Company s� .Urr�t,t � 7 Bond No. 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 `1"� OF- lmp')I� Acknowledgment of Cancellation To Whom It May Concern: Continental Cablevision of Michigan is changing its name to MediaOne of Metropolitan effective April 30, 1997. In conjunction with this name change, a replacment of the Franchise Bond is being filed with you. A Franchise Bond,number U9000097-0153, issued heF Detroit, Inc. Insurance Company, on behalf of MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc., is enclosed.United Pacific _ Also enclosed is a Cancellation Notice for bond number 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-142 which was issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company on behalf of Continental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal and was effective October 1, 1993. We request that this cancellation be accepted effective April 30, 1997 to coincide with the effective date of the new bond. As evidence of your acceptance of this transaction,please sign the co copy of the Cancellation Notice and return it in the attached pre-addressed,postage-paid envelope as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns,please contact me. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours, *� V Vl Krista M. Stromberg Surety Department cc: Alyson Buchanan, U S WEST, Inc Jon Kreucher,MediaOne Enclosures FRANCHISE BOND ': - _ — Bond No. U9000097-0153 Y THESE PRESENTS,That we, ""�diaQne of Metro�n^titan De 11 z Inch�i as Principal,pa1 d1 _, as KNOW ALL B P nn Iv ni r r i n 4 P P ifi In r n m n f h M r 124 W. Mi hi n 1 h Floor i Surety, are held and firmly bound unto f L enal !' m On H n Ir Tho and and 00/100 Dollars Hall, � - MI 48933 as Obligee, in the p payment of which, well and truly to be made, ourselves and our heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally,firmly by these ($100 000 00"* 1 lawful money of the United States of America, to the pay we hereby bind presents. rate and maintain a cable television system locatedlowishin WHER EAS, The above bounden Principal has entered into a written agreement with the Obligee commencing o _ which grants a Franchise to the Principal to construct, op art 11 this with like force and erform d observe lfill of sai d i f L n in Principal has agreed nafsaidualgreement is herebymade aupar all terms an con said Franchise agreement referred to above a effect as if herein set forth in length. H That if the above NOW, sore or TH EREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATI Oerf rm,and fulfill is obligations ass etPforth p in the to successors or assig for hich a bond must beobserve, posted,phen the above obligation shall be void, otherwise above mentioned agreement, remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, HOWEVER,That this bond shall be subject to the following express condasonsns, a written statement of rom tl and in any event, within thirty (30) days FIRST: That in the event of a default al the even to the Surety promptly, successors andi or mail to Surety at its Home such default with full details the shall be personally or by after the Obligee shall learn of such defauult, such make to be delivered Office, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, byregistered reason of any such default shall be brought minat on Suretyhor SECOND asserted claim, orsuit commen commenced within ner thtwel is �e (12)nd bymonths after the effective date of any Surety unless cancellation of this bond. days prior notice in writing from THIRD: That this bond may be terminated or canceled by the Surety gmailg Su�h termination or cancellation shall p g given by prior to the effective date of such termination or the Surety to the Principal and the Obli ee, such notice g not affect any liability incurred or accrued under this bond p tion. The liability of the Surety shall be limited to the amount set forth above and is not cumulative. the Obligee, cancella erson other FOURTH: That no right of action shall accrue under this bond to or for the use of any p its successors and assigns. FIFTH: This bond to be effective May :i�7 SIGNED AND SEALED May 13 1997 . MEDIAONE OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT, INC. By: Alyson F M. cha an, Manager, Risk inance and Insuranc UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY By: Krista M. Strombe Attorney-in-Fa rs-des Hartford Fire Insurance Company Franchise Bond,Bond No.5087070-1-CC1-2999-FR-142,dated This bond replaces and supe October 1, 1993 for continental Cablevision of Michigan. RELIANCE SURETY COMPANy UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMpANy RELIANCE NATIONAL INDENuVM COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, POWER OF ATTORNEY aware, and that RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY that RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws iz the State a Del- of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is'a corporation dulyor the State of Wisconsin (herein Penn collective) are corporations duly organized under the laws constitute and a Y called "the Companies") and that the Companies by virtue of signature and seals do herebym ppoint Thomas J.Jochums, Lori Whiffed, Kenneth D. Houtz, Krista M. Stromberg, Patrick D. Dineen,of Seattle, true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their behalf, and as their act and deed under the laws of undertakings at suretyship and to bind the Companies thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds an eke, writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and sealed and a Washington their officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that their said Attorney(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. d any and all bonds and d undertakings and other attested by one other of such This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of Article VI I of the By-Laws of RELIANCE RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, and RELIANCE NATIONA provisions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: NDEMN SURETY COMPANY, L INDEMNITY COMPANY which ARTICLE VII-EXECUTION OF BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS I. The Board r Directors,the President,the Chairman of the Board,any Senior Vice President,any Vice President or Assistant vice President or other officer designated Directors shall have power and authority to lal appoint Attorney(s) and to authorize them to execute on behalf of the Company,and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof,and(b)to remove any such Attorneyls e t Fact at any time and revoke the pray,bonds and undertake g by the Board of ngs,racognizances,contracts of Indemni 2. Attorney(s)-in-Fact shall have Power and authority given to them, tY and undertakings, recognizances,contracts of indemnity andautho other subject g the terms and limitations of the Power of Attorney issued to them, recognizances,contracts of indemnity and other writings abliga ory in the writings obligatory in the nature thereof. The corporate seat is not necessary _ to execute deliver on behalf of the Company,bonds ry the nature thereof. ry for the validity of any bonds and undertakings, 3. Attorney(s)-in-Fact shall have power and authority to execute affidavits required to be attached to bonds,recognizances, contracts of indemnity or other conditional undertakings and they shall also have power and authority to certify the financial statement o/the Company and to copies of the By-Laws of the C This Power of Attorney is signedor obligatory and sealed by facsimile under a company or any article or section[hereof. Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance company and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the Executive and Finance Committees of the Boards of Directors of Reliance P y and Reliance National Indemnity Company March Unanimous Consent dated as of February 28, 1994 and by the Executive and Financial Committee of the Board it Directors of Reliance Surety Company by Unanimous Consent dated as of March unanimous 1994. 'Resolved that the signatures of such directors and officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed to an executed and certified b fabearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall Y such Power of Attorney or any certificates relate Y facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding u be valid and binding n9 thereto by attached." g upon the Company and an y such Power so 9 Pon the Company,in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused these presents to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto 1996. affixed, this July 19, 1 RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY sM L^ ( ° r sea : UNITED ACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY �-� RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY k ����..� C.0 EMNTTY COMPANY STATE OF Washington COUNTY OF King } ss. On this, July 19, 1996, before me,Janet Blankle the Reliance Surety 96, before y, personal) a P g Company, and the Vice President of Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Reliance National Indemnity Company and that as such, being authorized to do soPexecudt d the foregoing instrument acknowledged himself to be the Vice President of the name of the corporation by himself as its duly authorized officer. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. purpose therein contained by signing �o�JSSley4..f. PUBLIC e r 12.29.97 �02 9 Notary y Y 9. Assistant Secretary of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, REL ANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,ublic in and for the State of Washing n I, Robyn Lan Residing at Puyallup ANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is still in full force and effect. MPANY, UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMP- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this copy of the Power 13y, ay 1 s 97 to.ro,,� 'w4c 3`suu" 09., Assistant Secretary �1 • NOTICE OF CANCELLATION THE A HARTFFORDORD PLAZA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED HARTFORD, CT 06115 Date: June 3,1997 Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 WHEREAS,on or about October 1 1993 the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety,executed its_ Franchise Bond in the penalty of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars($100 000.00,f*) n behalf f- Continental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal, of 26500 Northwestern Hiahway Sou t in favor of City of Lansing ,and WHEREAS, the said bond, by its terms, provides that the said Surety shall have the right to terminate its suretyship thereunder by serving notice of its election so to do upon the said Obligee,and WHEREAS, said Surety desires to take advantage of the terms of said bond and does hereby elect to terminate its liability in accordance with the provisions hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY shall, on April 30, 1997 consider itself released from all liability by reason of any default committed thereafter by the said Principal. SIGNED,Sealed and Dated June 3 1997 . HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Krista M.Stromberg, ttorney-in- ACKNOWLEDGMENT Return to: Hartford Bond U/W Center P.O.Box 3615 San Francisco,CA 94119 Principal: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 Your Notice of Cancellation as set forth above is received. We have arranged to cancel said bond effective Date: CITY OF LANSING Agent: Marsh &McLennan, Inc. cc: Continental Cablevision of Michigan (now MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.) S-3335-B-PC Rev 11/95 4SURNOCB This bond has been replaced and superseded by United Pacific Insurance Company Franchise Bond, Bond No. U9000097-0153, effective April 30, 1997 for MedlaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION THE HARTFORD CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED HARTFORD PLAZA HARTFORD, CT 06115 Date: June 3, 1997 Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 WHEREAS, on or about October 1 1993 the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety, executed its_ Franchise Bond in the penalty of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars($100.000.00`** )on behalf of_fontinental Cablevision of Michigan as Principal, of 26500 Northwestern Highway,Sguthfield MI 48076 in favor of City of Lansing , and WHEREAS, the said bond, by its terms, provides that the said Surety shall have the right to terminate its suretyship thereunder by serving notice of its election so to do upon the said Obligee,and WHEREAS, said Surety desires to take advantage of the terms of said bond and does hereby elect to terminate its liability in accordance with the provisions hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY shall, on April 30 1997 consider itself released from all liability by reason of any default committed thereafter by the said Principal. SIGNED, Sealed and Dated Jmne 3 1997 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Krista M.Stromberg,Attorney-in-Fact ACKNOWLEDGMENT Return to: Hartford Bond U/W Center P.O. Box 3615 San Francisco, CA 94119 Principal: Continental Cablevision of Michigan Bond No: 5087070-1-CCI-2999-FR-1 42 Your Notice of Cancellation as set forth above is received. We have arranged to cancel said bond effective Date: CITY OF LANSING Agent: Marsh & McLennan, Inc. cc: Continental Cablevision of Michigan (now MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.) S-3335-B-PC Rev 11/95 4SURNOCB This bond has been replaced and superseded by United Pacific Insurance Company Franchise Bond, Bond No. U9000097-0153, effective April 30, 1997 for MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.. . - -Consumer Federation f517-452-4142] 6/25/97 5:16 PM Page 1/3 YIp , Date- 6/25/97 Time- 3:29 PIVI To- Marc Thomas From- Consumer Federation Pages - 3 Reference - 45014.59804 Subject- Consumer Federation Press Release Fax No- 1-517-483-7630 4 ,3,�� � ,.�. �. �, _ 7., � 1. 1 � AM W Consurner Fcdcracloii 1W FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Rick Gamber June 25, 1997 (517) 482-6262 Michigan Attorney General Asked to Halt Ameritech New Media Deceptive Advertising Scheme $120 checks for "home phone bill"may not be what they appear LANSING — The Michigan Consumer Federation is asking Attorney General Frank Kelley to intervene and end the apparent deceptive advertising scheme being practiced in southeast Michigan by Ameritech New Media, the cable television arm of the local phone company, Ameritech of Michigan. Earlier this year,Ameritech New Media began marketing its cable television service by offering "AmeriChecks"worth $60 to $120 as an incentive to new cable subscribers. These AmeriChecks are l]�. Ameritech, promoted as being redeemable toward all Ameritech torthe MichiganrPublic Service Commission that it -Will the local phone company, has stated not honor these AmeriChecks as payment for home phone bills. In a letter to the attorney general, Rick Gamber, executive director of the Michigan Consumer Federation, called Ameritech New Media's "AmeriChecks"promotion campaign deceptive. "I strongly ech New Media urge you to take quick action to enforce the Consumer Protection Act and require Amerit to stop this deceptive marketing campaign immediately,"concluded Gamber. The Michigan Attorney General's office initially responded with a letter dated June 13, 1997, asking Ameritech to formally answer these charges by Thursday, June 19, 1997. Ameritech asked for additional time to formulate their response. They were given until Monday, June 23, 1997. As that deadline passed,Ameritech did not respond, but once again asked for additional time. Even after the inquiry by the attorney general's office, the AmeriChecks campaign has not been halted. In fact, Ameritech New Media has recently expanded the promotion by mailing AmeriChecks videos, contain- ing the deceptive promises, to many Detroit area homes. The Michigan Consumer Federaticn is now asking the attorney general to immediately take the necessary disciplinary action to end this deceptive advertising scheme by Ameritech New Media. "Once again the old adage applies, `Let the buyer beware.' While at first glance the offer looks 20 on their home phone bill? Consumers need to under- great — who wouldn't want to save$60 to$1 stand that they will be disappointed if they switch to Ameritech New Media cable telex; ni� ;ervice with the hope of applying AmeriChecks to their home phone bill," said Rick Gamber. if Ameritech were to honor AmeriChecks, it too could be in violation of state law. Furthermore, The Michigan Telecommunications Act of 1995 prohibits the joint marketing of cable and telephone services below cost. The Michigan Public Service Commission has also recently opened case U-11412 to begin their formal investigation of the AmeriChecks marketing scheme. i •� a'i N F 1 I 4 eaeraton LDl/-4bZ-414Lf ay=Consumer Y Consumers Beware! Some things you should know about Ameritech New Media's Advertising • Ameritech New Media, an affiliate of Ameritech of Michigan, has received franchise agreements from 19 Metro Detroit area communities to provide cable television services. • Ameritech New Media is promoting its cable service by offering$60 to $120 in "AmeriChecks" to new cable subscribers. These"AmeriChecks" are promoted as being redeemable toward any Ameritech service, including your local phone bill. • Ameritech, the local phone company, has publicly stated it will not redeem these "AmeriChecks"toward a local phone bill. • Despite these pronouncements, Ameritech New Media, continues to market the"AmeriChecks" as redeemable for rebates on Ameritech telephone service. • Ameritech New Media appears to be in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act which prohibits deceptive advertising. • Further, if Ameritech redeemed the "AmeriChecks"toward a local phone bill, they may be in violation of Michigan law (Michigan Telecommuni- cations Act of 1995) which prohibits the joint marketing of cable and telephone services below cost. • Consumers should be aware that Ameritech New Media appears to be practicing deceptive advertising and that they will be disappointed if they switch to Ameritech New Media cable service with the hope of applying AmeriChecks to their local telephone bill. . t ,�' •'s` /rmamlrA � M I CN ICA N CABLE TEL ECOMMUNI CAT I DNS ASS OCIATIO 14 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Chris Horak July 22, 1997 (517)482-2622 AmeriChecks Scheme Found in Violation of Ohio State Law ,Similar investigation on-going in Michigan Ameritech New Media's marketing scheme dubbed "AmeriChecks"has been found in violation of Ohio state law by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). Acting unanimously, the PUCO recently ordered Ameritech Ohio to stop accepting "AmeriChecks"issued by New Media for payment toward home telephone bills because this scheme would give some of its customers discounts for local telephone service not available to others. This controversial"AmeriChecks"marketing campaign has also been launched in Michigan. It's currently under investigation by the Michigan Pubic Service Commission(MPSC) for possible violations of the Michigan Telecommunications Act and the Con- sumer Protection Act. "The`AmeriChecks' program in Michigan appears to be identical to the one just recently found to be in violation of the law in Ohio. I would hope Ameritech would do the right thing and just pull the plug on this ill-conceived program in Michigan,"stated Colleen McNamara, Michigan Cable Telecom- munications Association Executive Director. Earlier this year,Ameritech New Media began marketing its cable television service by offering "AmeriChecks"worth $60 to$120 as an incentive to new cable subscribers. TheseAmeriChecks are promoted as being redeemable toward any Ameritech service, including home phone bills. The PUCO found thatAmeritech violated two sections of the law, giving itself an unfair and illegal marketing advantage in the cable television and telephone service businesses. The "AmeriChecks"promotion gave Ameritech cable customers a discount on phone service that wasn't available to its other phone customers. The Commission found that this gimmick was illegal since Ohio state law prohibits a utility from charging customers different rates for the same service. In April, the PUCO also found that Ameritech was illegally giving its cable television subsidiary an unfair competitive advantage relating to the placement of cable television transmission lines on Ameritech-owned telephone poles. 615 W. Ionia, Lansing,Michigan 48933 (517)482-2622, fax(517)4821819 i- o.� .�� ., I . 4 i I I Y BOARD ADVISOR IE5 CABI-E FOLIC FOR p'-sV IAD AINA vITjs L Co-�No ACT R� 5 OF CIT ST-IG Ol`1 SSE ABLECA � C M��IT Cablevisio for CD ith Continenount annually nt emeat `r' e an am ().35 perce ,s franchise tgr W111 setoU�d is eq°al able tele�islon Lansing C y The am n of Continental that the rovisio The City °f specifies activities• from P the City by amended' lecasting s revenue aid to sole �oinn unity tabs annual the°franchise fee P vided « JOT Is ntee's 1 law of Continen is Part 0f all be Pro Ming on, fedeta sh der service' and reement say of, and Progr aannels:uired to Pr°vide d ag Use al, an This money' Iomd-vas 1 and vblicis eBstnay be ub ic, educatactivities ent blecasting to help purPose y pnstitut ns a cable fr l equ' un�y p a able 4ision ers. aninure reg COMMtin subscrib FCC a lty o f acili ee f ands JOT by C°n ing 1 cable d channel cap 1 Use. Th enditures for l,ans d ramming fund are: g°ver ement requilocal Pr°g ing grant supPl Uality cablecast Ming; develop a the c°n'n"'nity of local Program of of advantage The goals oUrage a diversity e Public to the r messages; T° ell rs of the deliver 1• Me rc► tO and T° encourage m n media s of our People; 2 he cable teevisi� ve nt ate tale t the create alteln To showcase ussion, ir►cludoug times. 3• full des imP°rtant to courage Ues 4. v°ewpoints, of iss le Advisory B b f the Lans 1 on Cable this Board Counci Will guide the onsibtot the City Policies resP dateons to ne of the Pecommendati°ns The fo11onUalg rec°mmen is to Ma e spent each T u ate their an should as they members Coancil- and City 1 �_-� I -___ _ `� 1 � -- __ The City set aside a Portion of the available funds for 1 . activities including, but not limited to: may promotional act out programs to recognize channels. An awards ceremony Lansing's Community Y ubmit such a. and series produced for the City nition, video competitions As part of this recog to higher-level programs and series etition entry fee, by paying the comp increase other communications to on Advertising and/or of programs appearing b. awareness cable subscribers channels. the community shall be used on the community The majority encourage of available funds or cablecasting as: 2 ro rams defined production 0 ng programs channels are channels. a g channel programmed by rn Channel 2S� ovement access _ rO rammed by the City of Lansing; an educational access channel p Channel Community College; by Lansing public access channel programmed _ Channel 377, a P channel programmed by Continental Cablevision; Channel 39, an educational access med by State University; Michiganan educational access channel programb Channel 40, School District; ro rammed Y the Lansing channel p g _ Channel 41, an educational access programmed by he Lansing School District; and t an educational access channel p _ Channel 98� University. Michigan State submitting an such 1 for grants from funds by aired by the Producers may aining all pertinent i for nmation re application cont format below• described in (3) develop a list of City Board shall screen applications to licants consideration by the, aPP The rant recipients for to 1equire g recommended g shall have the right of uncil. The Board discussionviability bi i yeof a Program CO Board hearing for further to attend a The Board shall determine the applications. 2 �_ i f proposal and may modify the grant application in consultation with the applicant. The Board's primary concern shall be the resources needed to produce a high-quality program, regardless of content. These policies stipulate, however, that certain expenses shall not be eligible for City grant funding (see item 5 below). The Board shall forward its grant recommendations to the City Council. In accordance with Section 218.04 of the City Code, review by the Committee on Ways and Means shall be required prior to Council action on allocation of grant funds. After the City Council approves a list of grants from the Board's recommendations, grant recipients shall be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the City in which they agree to account for all grant funds and actually produce the programming specified in their applications. Unexpended funds from grant allocations shall be returned to the City. 3. Applicants shall be required to furnish the following information as part of their submission: a. Applicant's name. If the applicant is a public institution or a non-profit organization, the name of the individual(s) responsible for fulfilling grant agreement requirements shall also be provided. Non-profit organizations shall also provide a current copy of their Federal IRS 501(c)(3) tax exemption statement or, alternatively, their articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan. b. Complete mailing address. Non-Lansing residents may apply for production grants provided that the proposed programs are localized to Lansing or of interest to the Lansing viewing audience. C. Daytime and evening telephone number(s). d. A statement of qualifications to produce local programs of high technical quality for cablecasting. However, technical expertise shall not be considered essential to qualify for a grant. For individual producers of public access programs, this statement shall include previous training and/or experience indicating knowledge of basic and advanced 3 _ � .�; , f 1 r a techniques. public institutions that Production one or more designated television P qualified. employ trained staff toprogram com community channels shall be considered q roduced (public access, Of programming to be P and the e. Type government access) educational acres , (s) on which it will be cablecast. community produced ro ram(s) or series to be p f A description of the p g may be in the form o a a aillust illustrates heve as Part The description or a piece of video that outline), or a of the application, t treatment proposed program(s), of or a scrip at the discretion of storyboard; or a combination unds are requested to continue an applicant' If gran nested to supply a the licant shall be req existing series, the aPP video sampler of not more than five minutes. vi Dollar amount requested. g. rant funds will of the specific expenditures for which uses of h �, list tion of allowed and p be used. (See description The list shall indicate Band hall ther amounts grant funds, below.) firm rice quotes, are estimates or are based eXPenditure. indicate a timetable 11 matching funds provided by the i Dollar applicant anount d/or nd/o any other source. j Applicant's signature. signed by the applicant ag reeing, if grant 1 with all pertinent non- approved,p statement to Comply funds are approved,equal and affirmative action ortunity, the Charter requirements impos discrimination, Opp on City contractors by and the Code of Ordinances. that the signed by an author ized indtheucommungy channel I. A letter sig ramming ro osed entity responsible for prog listed in (e) above agrees to cablecast the p P program(s)• 4 _ �_ 1 _ .,: i f — programming for a be used by producers of local City shall 4. Grant funds may enditures. y variety of production-related exp examine each application based on its merits. Permitted expenditures of City grant funds include. a. Purchase of videotape. Purchase of Supplies and materials for special program sets, b, ra hics, logos, and other on-camera flats, backdrops, g P visuals. ialized production and post- s. Purchase or rental of sp ec production equipment not otherwise available. 1 If the City Council approves a request from an urchase an item of specialized individual producer p P Continental production or post-production equipment,urchase the item Cablevision shall have the right to p with allocated grant funds. der thisAccesscircumstance, the item shall be added to theand equipment inventory for Cable applicant ion chooses to other producers. If not purchase an approved item -for theto purchase in its inventory, the applicant may use grant the item. rofit organizations 2. Public institutions and e°a on of designated responsible for daily °p also apply for grants to community channels may purchase equipment to operate their channels.production This P include new or replacement p category may rove the and control equipment needed to imp technical quality of their cablecasts. require to fulfill the objective of d. Rental of special locations req eeting room, an a proposed program. This may include a m audi torium, a gymnasium, or an outdoor location available for rent. Unique expenses for materials or services without which Such a e. LJ qId proposed program or series in the grant application. expenses must be fully explained 5 ,� t r r -- - 5. City programming grant funds shall not be approved for: a. Salaries and wages for the applicant or any person(s) involved in production of the proposed program or series. b. Purchase of any equipment which is available free of charge from the Public Access equipment inventory. (This exclusion applies only to grant applications from individual producers.) C. Any reimbursement of past production expenses. d. Any expenses associated with production, procurement, or cablecasting of non-local programs. e. Any sales tax on approved purchases. Sales, taxes shall be the responsibility of grant recipients. 6 � i f BY THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANSING WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement between the City of Lansing and Continental Cablevision, each year the City reserves a portion of the revenue from the franchise fee paid by Continental for the purpose of providing grants to those who operate and create programs for the cable system' s public, educational and governmental access channels; and WHEREAS, the Cable Advisory Board has recommended that the City Council adopt a new policy that would allocate these funds fairly as part of the annual budget process, similar to the policy resolution adopted in October 1984 that allocates the remainder of the cable franchise fee; and WHEREAS, the Committee on Ways and Means has reviewed the Board' s policy recommendation and concurs therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lansing City Council hereby adopts a new standing policy, as recommended by the Cable Advisory Board and the Committee on Ways and Means, that each General Fund Budget's appropriation for support of Community Cablecasting Activities be allocated as follows: 30 percent to the City of Lansing for equipment and operating costs of Government Access Channel 28; 25 percent to Lansing Community College for equipment and operating costs of Educational Access Channel 36; 25 percent to the Lansing School District for equipment and operating costs of Educational Access Channel 40; 15 percent to Public Access producers for grants to pay for eligible production costs under existing policy; and 5 percent to the Cable Advisory Board for board expenses; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the allocation formula created by this policy shall be first used for development of the Fiscal Year 1993-94 General Fund Budget . January 18, 1993 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, TO AMEND PART EIGHT, CHAPTER 810 , OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 810 . 21, 810 . 22 , AND 810 . 23 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A CABLE ADVISORY BOARD AND SETTING FORTH THE DUTIES OF THE CABLE ADVISORY BOARD. The City of Lansing ordains : Section 1 . That Part Eight, Chapter 810 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lansing, Michigan, be amended as follows : 810 . 21 There is established a Cable Advisory Board. The Cable Advisory Board shall consist of eight (8) members who shall be appointed from the City at large. Members shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by City Council . The members shall be appointed for four (4) year terms, with two terms expiring each year. The first appointees shall hold the following terms : Two (2 ) members shall be appointed for a one (1) year term; two (2 ) members shall be appointed for a two (2) year term; two (2 ) members shall be appointed for a three (3) year term; and, two (2) members shall be appointed for a four (4) year term. The Chairperson of the Board shall be elected annually by a majority of the members of the Board. All members of the Board shall serve without compensation. The Board shall organize itself j � 3 Y and adopt rules of procedure in accordance with Section 5-105 of the Lansing City Charter. 810 .22 ion of the Board shall be to advise the (A) The primary funct sion matters subject to City Mayor and Council on cable televi y cable regulation under the provisions of this Chapter and any franchise agreements that may be approved by City Council . Such matters may be referred to the Board by the Mayor or City Council . (B) In addition, the Board shall have the following specific functions : policies (1) To propose new and evaluate existing City p re arding the operation of any cable Franchisee in relation to the g state of the art of the cable television industry. on any (2) To promote and propose programming Franchisee' s community access channels . (3) To review and make recommendations on applications individuals, corporations and for City grant funds submitted by public institutions based to develop local d on prop os for any Franchisee' s community access channels . programming use of City grant funds by (4) To evaluate the programmers of the community access channels . (5) To review and make recommendations on the operation of the City' s local government access channel. (6) To review and make recommendations on any unresolved complaints against a Franchisee received by the City A f� from the public on matters regulated by this Chapter or the applicable franchise agreement . (7) To review and make recommendations on proposals to the City from any Franchisee regarding renewal, extension and/or modification of the Franchisee' s franchise agreement or amendments to this Chapter. 810 . 23 The Board shall have staff assistance from the City Council Office and the City Attorney' s Office as may be required for the conduct of its business . Every Franchisee shall have a representative at each Board meeting, unless excused in advance. The Board shall prepare an annual report of its activities, due December 1 for the preceding calendar year. Copies thereof shall be filed with the Mayor, the Council and the Clerk. The Board may request an annual appropriation of funds to permit members ' attendance at cable television conferences, and dues and subscriptions for cable related organizations and publications . Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions hereof are hereby repealed. Section 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from its passage unless given immediate effect by City Council . �ArlstNc Cites of-AC, S Office of the City Attorney James D.Smiertka Jack C.Jordan City Attorney Chief Deputy City Attorney John M.Roberts.Jr. Wendel V.Hall Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Brian W.Bevez Billie J.O'Berry Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Wm."Burt"Burleson May 13' 1997 Margaret E.Vroman Associate City Attorney Associate City Attorney Via Facsimile Transmission & U.S. First-Class Mail Senator John McCain 241 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510-0303 Dear Senator McCain: During the last session, the 104"' Congress passed two bills, among others, which were of monumental importance to municipalities across the United States. One was the Unfunded Federal Mandate Legislation. The other was the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which, among other things, preserved municipal control over the streets and highways and their ability to obtain fair compensation for the use of their public right-of- way. I understand you will shortly be holding a hearing on this Telecommunications Act which may consider claims presented by cable and telephone companies that they contend they should be able to use our nations streets and highways free of charge and without any municipal control over such usage. It is vital that you reject these claims. Municipal control over the streets and highways is vital for several reasons, including but not limited to public safety. Further, allowing cable or telephone companies to take and utilize millions of miles of municipal streets and highways where they do not currently have lines, such as the commercial and industrial areas where cable companies lack such technology, would violate the unfunded federal mandates statute, as well as the property rights provisions of the Constitution. The 104"' Congress appropriately addressed the issues in the 1996 Telecommunications Act which took the Federal Communications Commissions out of the local property rights and right-of-way management business. It kept the authority where it belongs, that being municipalities,while preventing local actions which prohibit the entry of new telecommunication companies. We're Making I t-qlappen" 5lh Floor,City Hall • Lansing, Michigan 48933 • (517)483-4320 • FAX(517)483-4081 CYTYArrvi,irl t.ANSING not tt5 Page Two Senator John McCain May 13, 1997 In the 1996 Act, Congress did not give the FCC any condemnation authority over municipal property, let alone the authority to take property without compensation as the telephone and cable companies desire. Local control of the public rights-of-way and the ability to receive fair compensation for the use of municipal property is essential. Please, we urge you to reject the cable and telephone companies demand to reopen these provisions of the 1996 Act. Cordially, a k C. Jordan C ief Deputy ' Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Senator Spencer Abraham Senator Carl Levin 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILOMC �pHN McCAIN WASHINGTON, DC 205 10-0 303 12021 224-2235 ARIZONA COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, 1839 SOUTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION A y ������ � ��� SUITE 375 „iten MESA, AZ 85210 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES " u 16021 491-4300 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 2 a00 EAST ARIZONA BILTMORE CIRCLE SUITE 1150 June 9, 1997 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 16021 952-24 10 450 WEST PASEO REDONDO SUITE 200 Mr . Jack C. Jordan TUCSON. AZ 85701 15201 670-6334 Chief Deputy City Attorney City of Lansing TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIRED 12021 224-7 13 2 5th Floor 16021 952-0170 City Hall Lansing , Michigan 48933 Dear Mr . Jordan: Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation' s hearing on the issue iginally scheduled for May 13 , 1997 • which was or of preemption , postponed due to multiple Unfortunately, this hearing had to be p scheduling conflicts. unications Federal preemption of state 253dofothe Telecocal mmunications Act policy as it relates to Section of 1996 was an issue that would o have bur een nsaddre th s1d at the not hearing. While I understand y l authority to govern local rights-of-way . usurp non-federa Section 253(c) states: ority Nothing in this secrnmenton ftocmanage thets the hpublicof a State or local gove rights-of-way o to require fair and reasonable r on compensation from telecommunications providers, a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis , i if the compensation required is publicly osed by such government. reserves State and local governments' Sections 253(c) p _way . A number of preemption ability to control their rights the Federal Communications cases now awaiting decision by of ts Commission involve . the issue of echrarguablyegmPedesncompetition and rights-of-way n a manner expressed my concern in contravention of the 1996 Act . I have over the length of time these mttthesCommission decen ades these e FCC, and llandwork responsiblya cases promptly Page 2 I intend to reschedule the May 13th hearing to assure the FCC discharges this obligation . In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this or any other matter of concern. Sin rel , Sin McCain United States Senator JM/jfd /Pr � �Nc Ci o f.L ansin 7 P � J CN1G �J Office of the City Attorney James D.Smlertka Jack C.Jordan City Attorney Chief Deputy City Attorney John M. Roberts.Jr. Wendel V.Hall Deputy City Attorney Wendel City Attorney Brian W. Bevez Billie J.O'Be Assistant City Attorney Billie J. 'Bity rr oAssistrncy Wm.'Bun Burleson May 13 1997 Margaret E.Vroman Associate City Attorney Y ' Associate City Attorney Senator John McCain Via Facsimile Transmission & U.S. First-Class Mail 241 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510-0303 Dear Senator McCain: During the last session, the 104"' Congress passed two bills, among others, which were of monumental importance to municipalities across the United States. One was the Unfunded Federal Mandate Legislation. The other was the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which, among other things, preserved municipal control over the streets and highways and their ability to obtain fair compensation for the use of their public right-of- way. I understand you will shortly be holding a hearing on this Telecommunications Act which may consider claims presented by cable and telephone companies that they contend they should be able to use our nations streets and highways free of charge and without any municipal control over such usage. It is vital that you reject these claims. Municipal control over the streets and highways is vital for several reasons, including but not limited to public safety. Further, allowing cable or telephone companies to take and utilize millions of miles of municipal streets and highways where they do not currently have lines, such as the commercial and industrial areas where cable companies lack such technology, would violate the unfunded federal mandates statute, as well as the property rights provisions of the Constitution. The 1041h Congress appropriately addressed the issues in the 1996 Telecommunications Act which took the Federal Communications Commissions out of the local property rights and right-of-way management business. It kept the authority where it belongs, that being municipalities,while preventing local actions which prohibit the entry of new telecommunication companies. We're Ma ng It51fappen" 5th Floor.City Hall • Lansing. Michigan 48933 • (517)483-4320 • FAX(517)483-4081 rFTVAT'rYN,(`l L.AN.1,1Nr: MI IlS Page Two Senator John McCain May 13, 1997 In the 1996 Act, Congress did not give the FCC any condemnation authority over municipal property, let alone the authority to take property without compensation as the telephone and cable companies desire. Local control of the public rights-of-way and the ability to receive fair compensation for the use of municipal property is essential. Please, we urge you to reject the cable and telephone companies demand to reopen these provisions of the 1996 Act. Cordially, a k C. Jordan C ief Deputy Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Senator Spencer Abraham Senator Carl Levin 04, a ilg city ooffice ofthe City Attorney Jack C-Jordan Chte[Deputy City Attorncy WendelV• Dcpuly City Attorney James D.Smiertka City Attorncy Billie J.°Berry Assistant city Attorney John M.Roberts.Jr- lxp,ry C«y Attorncy Margaret F Vroman Brian w.Bevez June 20, 1997 Mate city Attorncy Assistant City Attorncy WM.-Burt Burleson Associate City AttorneY Ray Koivisto 313 East Edgew°od ppt.#6 Lansing,MI 49911 Re; Rising Cable Rates I{oivisto: 1997,which was received by Dear Mr ondenCe,dated March 12, I wish to extend my our corresp tioned matter. es on the Council 1997,regarding the above-cap ersonnel Chang This is to follow Mar 1 g but due to p to ou in this the City Council on M onding to your letter' formation that I convey y in resp I hope the inform e City of Lansing- apologies for the delay direction. this matter was diverted in my that staff laming the recent cable costs increase�n •s subject, s this letter will be of service m explaining has an ordinance regardrlg the City of Lansing " Section 810.01 states As you probably are a"��e' entitled "Cable Television. of the City in the de fair regulation of cable television service being Chapter 910 of the Codified ordinances, °kcal and efficient cable teclablel telev on b g s Chapter is top adequate,econ between the"PUrP of thi d encourage e harmony d to encourage stems servICe public interest,to pro promote an romote an of cable television system subscribers and to provide for thes preferences or advantages. to the resident�e�the City, to p rinlination or undue companies and without unjust disc residents of the City "adequate, econ�1=�'d to and encouraging fitted to promoting fission is comet Lansing,it does not cow�,c such Comm►Increases. Although the City "to the residents of the Federal CommWants"to promote and efficient cable television service d determined by Ce states, the City The City does es are the Jurisdiction of an These increases D.C. However, as the ordinan the subscriber. on nies and you, "FCC,) in Vtlashingt to provide poor service to the residents o C on "between cable television CO encourage harm y anies that serve, community not want the cable CO hat service is provided. or any other cable to discriminate how they must first formally own as Continental Cablevision Before the Media One le tel service to residents of the City, can provide cab television company I t 9(aPPert 9vtaCr'6 FAX(517)483-4081 ,�e�re 483-4320 Hall • Lansing.Mtchlgan 48933 • 15171 5lh Floor.City ��,Nn.r-T-vi,ri i nnicrnu, Page 2 Mr- Ray Koiviso June 20, 1997 Obtain a franchise from The rates the City as mandated b and charges that a cable com Y Section 810.03 of the Cable Television Ordinance as follows: company such as Media One can charge, Section 810.09(a) states However, this rovision shall not be deemed to rohi " scale of char es and classification of rates to which a the establish maybe entitled." hment of a aded n subscriber coming within @) "No rate or charge for cable television service and no cable television co Provided for its se m the City shall be effective, company shall advertise, collect or receive service, until such company has filed a complete schedule any rates or charge With the City Clerk. e of rates and charges • • - All rates char es and rate structures of a cable television exem t from re lation or control b installation rate established herein for commuly ni is'°n com an shall be except for the monthly rate and The cable television companytY cablevision. . . ." Cablevision service w is exempt from control of the City hich is defined as "a coInmuru except for the community channels providing governmental,educational and community formation service consist, (d))• public access program g of several g (See Section 810.02 Media One applies for The new rates were calculated these rate Increases, effective February setting procedures. m accordance with the FC , 1, 1997,with the Federal FCC, These increases �L C s rate regulations pry �nl Suppliers such as CAN are the result of adjustments in the and their approved rate- channels, and for increased ' ' ESP' and Discove pnCe$Media One must pay inflation, operating �'� additional fees it continues to significantl i cost, and FCC regulato paid for newly of fiber optic technologies mprove the cable network, includin T'fees. F Y added Further, Media One g but not limited to, the installation It is my understanding that In late December of 1996 or earl notice for mailed to each customer of Y January of 1997 Your review once again. It should be noted Media One. a copy of the Possible value to its customers I have included a co that Media One is strivin PY of that month less than them , as it set the above total price for the rebuilt are maximum FCC g to Provide the best perm-tted rate. as at least 80 cent per No one wants to ava new ilable to us theY more for anything, however, public, the rates for such services are technological breakthroughs repeating that the City of Lansing are made responsibilit g does not control how going to increase. However, it bears y of the FCC, much these rates are increased as this is the Page 3 Mr. Ray Koivisto June 20, 1997 These are the reasons for the new rates being charged by Media One. I hope that this explanation is helpful to you in making a decision to continue using Media One in the future. If you have any further questions or concerns as it pertains to this matter, please feel free to contact me. Cordially, J c C. Jordan of Deputy Ci Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Marc Thomas, Telecommunication and Cable Advisory Board Chair Maureen Daugherty-Rosenbaum,Manager of Corporate Affairs of Media One . . �? �'�v�� ;y' A �P14 5 1NC Ci of-,Lans 'm g IC 111 G" office of the City Attorney Jack C.Jordan James D.Smiertka Chief Deputy City Attorney City Attorney Wendel V.Hall John M.Roberts.Jr. Dcputy City Attorney Ucputy City Attorney Billie J.O'Berry Brian W.Beve2 Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney June 20' 1997 Margaret E.Vroman Wm."Burl"Burleson Associate City Attorney Associate City Attorney Mr. Ray Koivisto 313 East Edgewood Apt. #6 Lansing,MI 48911 Re: Rising Cable Rates Dear Mr. Koivisto: This is to follow-up on your correspondence, dated March 12, 1997,which was received by the City Council on March 18, 1997, regarding the above-captioned matter. I wish to extend my apologies for the delay in responding to your letter,but due to personnel changes on the Council staff this matter was diverted in my direction. I hope the information that I convey to you in this letter will be of service in explaining the recent cable costs increase in the City of Lansing. As you probably are aware, the City of Lansing has an ordinance regarding this subject, that being Chapter 810 of the Codified Ordinances, entitled"Cable Television." Section 810.01 states the"purpose of this Chapter is to provide fair regulation of cable television service of the City in the public interest,to promote and encourage adequate,economical and efficient cable television service to the residents of the City, to promote and to encourage harmony between cable television companies and their subscribers and to provide for the furnishing of cable television systems service to residents of the City without unjust discrimination or undue preferences or advantages." Although the City is committed to promoting and encouraging"adequate, economical and efficient cable television service"to the residents of Lansing, it does not control such rate increases. These increases are the jurisdiction of and determined by the Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") in Washington D.C. However, as the Ordinance states, the City wants "to promote and encourage harmony"between cable television companies and you, the subscriber. The City does not want the cable companies that serve our community to provide poor service to the residents or to discriminate how that service is provided. Before the Media One (formally known as Continental Cablevision) or any other cable television company can provide cable television service to residents of the City, they must first We're Making It--lappen" 5th Floor, City Hall • Lansing, Michigan 48933 • (517)483-4320 • FAX(517)483-4081 (`TTVAT'rW,,VI1 f AhTQTT((S KAT TIC Page 2 Mr. Ray Koiviso June 20, 1997 obtain a franchise from the City as mandated by Section 810.03 of the Cable Television Ordinance. The rates and charges that a cable company such as Media One can charge, Section 810.09(a) states as follows: However,this provision shall not be deemed to prohibit the establishment of a graded scale of chartzes and classification of rates to which any subscriber coming within may be entitled." (b) "No rate or charge for cable television service provided in the City shall be effective, and no cable television company shall advertise,collect or receive any rates or charge for its service,until such company has filed a complete schedule of rates and charges with the City Clerk. (c) ". . . All rates, charges and rate structures of a cable television company shall be exempt from regulation or control by the City, except for the monthly rate and installation rate established herein for community cablevision. . . ." The cable television company is exempt from control of the City except for the community Cablevision service which is defined as "a community information service consisting of several channels providing governmental,educational and public access programming."(See Section 810.02 (d)) Media One applied for these rate increases,effective February 1, 1997,with the Federal FCC. The new rates were calculated in accordance with the FCC's rate regulations and their approved rate- setting procedures. These increases are the result of adjustments in the prices Media One must pay program suppliers such as CAN, ESP, and Discovery, additional fees it paid for newly added channels, and for increased inflation, operating cost, and FCC regulatory fees. Further, Media One continues to significantly improve the cable network, including but not limited to, the installation of fiber optic technologies. It is my understanding that in late December of 1996 or early January of 1997, a copy of the notice of new rates were mailed to each customer of Media One. I have included a copy of that notice for your review once again. It should be noted that Media One is striving to provide the best possible value to its customers, as it set the above total price for the rebuilt areas at least 80 cent per month less than the maximum FCC permitted rate. No one wants to pay more for anything, however, as new technological breakthroughs are made available to us, the public, the rates for such services are going to increase. However, it bears repeating that the City of Lansing does not control how much these rates are increased, as this is the responsibility of the FCC. Page 3 Mr. Ray Koivisto June 20, 1997 These are the reasons for the new rates being charged by Media One. I hope that this explanation is helpful to you in making a decision to continue using Media One in the future. If you have any further questions or concerns as it pertains to this matter,please feel free to contact me. Cordially, J c C. Jordan of Deputy Ci Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Marc Thomas, Telecommunication and Cable Advisory Board Chair Maureen Daugherty-Rosenbaum, Manager of Corporate Affairs of Media One 1 � z .3 r n l y V JOHN McCAIN 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BU ARIZONA WASHINGTON. OC 20510-03� COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, (202) 224-2235 AND TRANSPORTATION ����� ������ � ��� 1839 SOUTH ALMA SCHOOL Rt COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SUITE 375 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS MESA, 85210 16021 4 9 1-4300 2400 EAST ARIZONA BILTMORE CIRCLE June 9, 1997 SUITE 1150 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 (6021 952-24 10 450 WEST PASEO REDONDC Mr . Jack C. Jordan SUITE 200 Chief Deputy City Attorney TS20) 0 6334 15201 670-6334 City of Lansing 5th Floor TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IM PA 12021 224-7132 City Hall 16021 952-0170 Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Mr . Jordan : Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation' s hearing on the issue of preemption, which was originally scheduled for May 13, 1997 . Unfortunately, this hearing had to be postponed due to multiple scheduling conflicts. Federal preemption of state and local telecommunications policy as it relates to Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an issue that would have been addressed at the hearing. while I understand your concerns, the 1996 Act does not usurp non-federal authority to govern local rights-of-way. Section 253(c) states: Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government . Sections 253 (c ) preserves State and local governments' ability to control their rights-of-way. A number of preemption cases now awaiting decision by the Federal Communications Commission involve the issue of exercising regulation of streets and rights-of-way in a manner which arguably impedes competition in contravention of the 1996 Act . I have expressed my concern over the length of time these matters have been pending at the FCC, and I will work to see that the Commission decides these cases promptly and responsibly. Page 2 I intend to reschedule the May 13th hearing to assure the FCC discharges this obligation. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this or any other matter of concern . Sin rel , ohn McCain United States Senator JM/jfd 1-4 S I � G CITY OF LANSING Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board Tenth Floor, City Hall H I 124 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 September 9, 1997 Kim A. Wilson, Ph.D. 2327 Tulane Drive Lansing, Michigan 48912-3549 Dear Ms. Wilson: The Lansing City Council referred your letter dated May 18, 1997, regarding MediaOne's business practices to the Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board. The Board has been requested to respond to your concerns. At our meeting of August 13, 1997, this matter was addressed. A representative from MediaOne, Ms. Maureen Daugherty, informed the Board that they made attempts to contact you to remedy the problem. It is unfortunate that there has been confusion with respect to MediaOne's new services. Our Board recommends that you contact Ms. Daugherty directly at MediaOne at 394-9170. If we can be of further assistance in the future, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Marc Thomas Chairperson Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Board tah - __ - - - - ._r-.- + .. _. �'� r �, F[F MINUTES CABLE ADVISORY BOARD TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1997 -- 5:30 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT APPROXIMATELY 5:35 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Marc Thomas, Chair David Koskinen, Vice Chair Elizabeth Aldrich, Member Luke Schafer, Member Ida Bryanton, Member EXCUSED ABSENCE Gregory Starks, Member Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member OTHERS PRESENT Maureen Daugherty, Continental Cable Jack Jordan, Law Dept. Terese Horn, Council Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES NO MINUTES PREVIOUSLY TAKEN. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS No Public Comment. G � y 1 ACTION/DISCUSSION, OTHER Members needed to Constitute a Quorum for the Board Attorney Jack Jordan is to report back to the Board with respect to the number needed to complete a quorum while there is one seat vacant. Letter from Ray Koivisto It was determined that the Board would send a response to Mr. Koivisto. There was a brief discussion as to what should be included in this letter. The Board discussed a previous letter from Continental Cable that informed the Council of their intent to increase rates. Chair Thomas gave a summary of what had occurred with respect to the Committee's decision to send a response drafted by former Cable Advisory Secretary Ron Onufer. The letter was to provide information that the Cable Advisory Board nor the City Council has any control over the rates set by Continental Cable as long as the rates are not higher than the allowable limits that the FCC has put forth. The letter was not drafted prior to his extended leave. It was noted that the FCC is responsible for approving the rates. The Committee requested Attorney Jack Jordan compose the letter for Mr. Koivisto. There was further discussion as to what to include in the letter. It was determined that the letter to Mr. Koivisto would include the following: • An explanation as to how the rates are set and how FCC works. • The rates were set following the guidelines that the FCC has put forward, and the rates were raised within the limit and actually could have been raised even higher. • Acknowledgment of his displeasure along with the explanation of who has jurisdiction and indicate that he write the FCC. • The increase for programming costs. • Explanation that at a previous meeting the Board asked that Continental Cable provide additional information about the costs that were to be increased and that it was provided. 2 l_ '� .. t de an There was discussion as to whether or not to Arco Attorney Jordansto explanation of the purpose of the Cable MTdvisory Thomas for his review and fax a draft of the letter consultation with Vice-Chair David Koskinen. LET TER FROM CONTINENTAL CABLE REGARDING RATE INCREASES Chair Thomas requested a consensus from the Board e Cable Advisory Board ers as to whether this should have a response from to the City Council. It was the consensus of the if review r the letter that will be sent to Mrori t oo Coun 1S and then dec that same letter should be used to p REPORTS Chairperson: The Chair provided the Board members e and also it couple y of a Supreme Court ruling on the Must y of New Releases regarding the Public Service Commission approval on applications to expand different companies' ies' basic tetep one that a service in the service area including Lansing. goal for the Cable Advisory Board is to promote public assess programming. Vice Chairperson: No report submitted. Secretary: No Secretary determined at this time. Continental Cablevision Representative: nment 1 saff f thethe workload with both programming and g ` Program Manager's responsibilities were broken u Three Corporate so that the Program Manager only deals with programming. Affairs Managers for the State of Michigan is to sanctiondl in ree State different areas where Continental is Y to do government affairs. Maureen d Daugherty gW thyany the that is a Corporate Affair's Manager for this area and government program. Ms. Daugherty gave a brief update on the rebuild of fibe Continentar will be laid. Cable. She indicated that by the end of July ll She clarified that Carl will have his portion finished and that it will 3 e i V P go right to the Customer Care for them to take down all the old lines and hook up the new taps to Holmes. The customer will have to contact them to let them know that they would like the smart box. Times will have to be coordinated with them to have a smart box hooked up. The turn-on point will be determined by what neighborhood they are turning on at that point. She indicated that Show Time is going to be available in Lansing starting on June 3, 1997. There was question as to whether information is given to the customer with respect to channel location once the new line is turned on. Ms. Daugherty explained that there is a pamphlet that is given to the customer that explains what the different channels are that can be received and all of the different packages that can be purchased. A customer will still get the benefits of the new system if one decides not to purchase a smart box, but they would only be able to go up to approximately Channel 60. In order to have the extra channels, the customer will need to have a Smart Box that would enable them to get all of the channels. After the Smart Box is hooked up, the customer will still have to pay for the extra packages which includes Select Service, Deluxe Service, Premium, or the Pay Per- View. There was question raised as to the boundary for the hook-up of the rebuild that will be finished in July. Ms. Daugherty will provide the information to the Board at the next meeting. There was discussion with respect to the computer school hook-ups. Ms. Daugherty indicated that Continental Cable provides free drops to the schools for computers. Once everything is rebuilt and everybody is up on the system including schools, then they will introduce the internet cable modems to the general public. Within a year of that time if they rule that out, they have the responsibility of introducing it to the schools. They will provide each school with a free cable modem and internet access. "Net-day 97" is a commitment to rewire three high schools and four junior high schools in Lansing with category five wiring which is the wiring needed to hook up the internet access. Congressman Debbie Stabenaw made a commitment to the Lansing area and Continental Cable to supply two crews, volunteers technical people, and to go out on April 19, 1996, and rewire. The goal is to have all the high 4 S C i a schools and junior high schools completely wired for internet access. Elementary schools will need funds to do their wiring; therefore, fund raising functions will be forth coming. Every school in Lansing private or public is wired for cable and has received a free cable drop and basic cable service from Continental. STAFF WAS REQUESTED TO HAVE THE AGENDA MAILED OUT FOR THE BOARD MEETING NO LATER THAN THE FRIDAY PRIOR TO THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Terese A. Horn Senior Secretary Approved by the Board. Signed by: ,'� 61�1_ _ 910-97 Marc Thomas date Chair Appropriate documents are attached. 5 i I I AGENDA LANSING CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, April 9, 1997 -- 5:30 p.m. Tenth Floor Conference Room City Hall Marc Thomas, Chairperson David Koskinen, Vice- Chairperson,,/ Elizabeth Aldrich, Member ,,'-- Ida Bryanton, Member v, Luke Schafer, Member Gregory Starks, Member Dr. Gilbert Williams, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (if available) 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS • Letter from Ray Koivisto • Letter from Continental Cable Regarding Rate Increases 6. REPORTS a Chairperson b. Vice Chairperson C. Secretary d. Continental Cablevision Representative 7. ACTION ITEMS - None 8. RECEIPT OF LATE ITEMS 9. OTHER 10. PUBLIC COMMENT f \ 11. ADJOURN - 1-7-1 5� V 0 II C-� Date Committee REPRESENTING PHONE NA ADDRESS A Mi- REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND `--6 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD March 21, 1997 �, ;� Continental 2 a PSI 12: 01 Cablevision® Marilyn Slade, Clerk LANSING CITY CLERK City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan - 9th Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Ms. Slade, I am writing to inform you that Continental's equipment and installation rates will be changing as of May 1, 1997. The new rates reflect changes in the costs of providing equipment and services to our customers. Under its Social Contract with Continental approved on August 3, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission has permitted the new rates to go into effect upon 30 days advance notice to customers. Pursuant to the Social Contract, Continental's equipment and installation rates will now be reviewed by the FCC. The rates determined by the FCC will be subject to subsequent enforcement by local franchising authorities. Our new rates are as follows: EQUIPMENT RATES CURRENT RATE NEW RATE Jerrold Converter $2.79 $3.10 Jerrold Remote $0.49 $0.40 INSTALLATION & MISC. RATES Hourly Service Charge $28.52 $37.00 New Unwired Installation $30.50 $37.00 Prewired Reconnect Installation $17.75 $25.00 Additional Outlet Installation or $12.50 $15.00 Relocation, Same Trip Additional Outlet/Converter $19.75 $24.00 Installation or Relocation, Separate Trip VCR, Amplifier or Converter Installation, Same Trip $7.00 $9.00 VCR, Amplifier or Converter Installation, $14.25 $18.00 Separate Trip Premium Service Field Upgrade $9.25 $18.00 Late Fee (will become effective July 1, 1997) $4.00 $5.00 Collection fee $10.00 $15.00 As always, Continental Cablevision is committed to providing our customers the most technologically advanced entertainment and information systems available. If you have any questions, please feel to call me at (517) 394-9170, at your convenience. Sincerely, Maureen Daugherty Corporate Affairs Manager Corporate Affairs 26500 Northwestern Hwy. • Suite 203• Southfield,Michigan 48076•Telephone(810)204-1802- Fax(810)204-1890 t IX CZ RECovsq) RECE MAR 1 81997 97 MAR 19 REFERRED TO THE CABLE AND LANSING Ck Y CLERK LAN'S' (i CITY COUNCIL TELLECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD 313 E. Edgewood, #6 Lansing, Mi . 48911 Cable Franchise Authority March 12, 1997 City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, Mi. 48917 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regards to the raising of cable rates by Continental Cablevision. Their rates are already excessive, and there is no good reason for these higher rates. You have done a disservice to the citizens of Lansing. You have not done your j obs. ' Ray o'visto ZEFERRED TO THE CABLE AND 1( TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY �� : BOARD , n E 1,a,G D Continental March 21, 1997 { ? 11AR 24 P141 12: 01 Cablevision® Marilyn Slade, Clerk LANSING CITY CLERK City of Lansing 124 W. Michigan - 9th Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Ms. Slade, I am writing to inform you that Continental's equipment and installation rates will be changing as of May 1, 1997. The new rates reflect changes in the costs of providing equipment and services to our customers. Under its Social Contract with Continental approved on August 3, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission has permitted the new rates to go into effect upon 30 days advance notice to customers. Pursuant to the Social Contract, Continental's equipment and installation rates will now be reviewed by the FCC. The rates determined by the FCC will be subject to subsequent enforcement by local franchising authorities. Our new rates are as follows: EQUIPMENT RATES CURRENT RATE NEW RATE Jerrold Converter $2.79 $3.10 Jerrold Remote $0.49 $0.40 INSTALLATION & MISC. RATES Hourly Service Charge $28.52 $37.00 New Unwired Installation $30.50 $37.00 Prewired Reconnect Installation $17.75 $25.00 Additional Outlet Installation or $12.50 $15.00 Relocation, Same Trip Additional Outlet/Converter $19.75 $24.00 Installation or Relocation, Separate Trip VCR, Amplifier or Converter Installation, Same Trip $7.00 $9.00 VCR, Amplifier or Converter Installation, $14.25 $18.00 Separate Trip Premium Service Field Upgrade $9.25 $18.00 Late Fee (will become effective July 1, 1997) $4.00 $5.00 Collection fee $10.00 $15.00 As always, Continental Cablevision is committed to providing our customers the most technologically advanced entertainment and information systems available. If you have any questions, please feel to call me at (517) 394-9170, at your convenience. Sincerely, Maureen Daugherty Corporate Affairs Manager Corporate Affairs 26500 Northwestern Hwy. •Suite 203•Southfield,Michigan 48076•Telephone(810)204-1802• Fax(810)204-1890 x I d i d WINSTON & STRAWN 35 WEST WACKER DRIVE 1400 L STREET,N.W. 8. RUE DU CIRQUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 80601-9703 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005-3502 75008 PARIS. FRANCE 200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK.NY 10166-4193 (202)371-5700 SULAYMANIYAH CENTER RIYADH 11495, SAUDI ARABIA FACSIMILE(202)371.5950 43. RUE DU RHONE WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 1204 GENEVA.SWITZERLAND 202-371-5789 February 4, 1997 VIA MESSENGER Mr. William F. Caton Acting Secretary Federal Communications Commission —_ Room 222 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Motion for Declaratory Ruling Dear Mr. Caton: Enclosed is an original and five copies of a Motion for Declaratory Ruling pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules. Please file-stamp the extra copy and return it with the messenger in the accompanying envelope. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely, Stacey Stern Albert Enclosures CC' Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau Thomas C. Power Assistant Division Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Cable Services Bureau `. Y x }. I i .� I i I i d i I � . I I BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D.C. 20554 In re Motion of ) Entertainment Connections, Inc. and ) Telecommunication Services Corporation ) fo r ) Declaratory Ruling Regarding the ) Applicability of Section 621 of the ) Cable Communications Policy Act ) of 1984, as amended by the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) —' i i SUMMARY Entertainment Connections, Inc. ("ECI") and Telecommunications Services Corporation ("TSC") hereby move pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules for a declaratory ruling that ECI and TSC are not required to obtain a franchise under Section 621 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 to provide the video programming services described herein. ECI currently _ subscribes to, and TSC intends to subscribe to, a service offered by common carriers whereby the video programming provided to subscribers of ECI and TSC runs through the common carriers' facilities before connecting to ECPs or TSC's facilities inside the private property line. The common carrier operates this service on a common carriage basis, complying with all Title II requirements regarding this service. As described herein, ECI and TSC are not cable operators and thus dQ not require a franchise; , since under Section 621 only cable operators providing cable service must obtain a franchise. ECI and TSC only control and own facilities located solely on private property. The common carrier retains ownership, control and responsibility for its facilities. Alternatively, ECI and TSC are not cable operators because the facilities of the common carriers are not cable systems, given that they do not provide video programming directly to subscribers. In any event, no franchise is required to offer this service because ECI and TSC unquestionably are not cable operators. a I F f TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I. ECI AND TSC DO-NOT NEED FRANCHISES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CABLE OPERATORS . . . . . . . . . A. ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Facilities They Control Are Located Solely On Private Property And They Do Not Have Control Of, Or Bear Responsibility For, The Management And Operation Of Any Common Carriers'Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. In The Alternative, ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Common Carriers'Facilities Are Not Cable Systems Since They Do Not Provide Video Programming Directly _ To Subscribers 11 II. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED TSC WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR A LII' TED DURATION . . ,. . . . . . . . . 13 III. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ECI AND TSC ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANNEL SERVICE, AND THE NEW YORK VIDEO DIALTONE TRIAL DECISIONS DO NOT AFFECT ECI'S AND TSC'S RIGHTS TO OPERATE WITHOUT A FRANCHISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z i BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D.C. 20554 In re Motion of ) Entertainment Connections, Inc. and ) Telecommunication Services Corporation ) fo r ) Declaratory Ruling Regarding the ) Applicability of Section 621 of the ) Cable Communications Policy Act ) of 1984, as amended by the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) - MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RULING Pursuant to Rule 1.2 of the Commission's rules, Entertainment Connections, Inc. ("ECI") and Telecommunications Services Corporation ("TSC") hereby move for a declaratory ruling that the provision by ECI and TSC of the services described below does not require ECI or TSC to obtain a franchise under Section 621 ("Section 621") of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No, 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (the "1984 Act"), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. BACKGROUND ECI and TSC operate satellite master antenna television systems that provide video programming primarily to residents of multiple dwelling units ("MMUs"). ECI operates in several 2 S $ C counties in Michigan and TSC operates in a variety of locales in North Carolina and South Carolina. Neither ECI nor TSC have ever obtained a franchise under Section 621 to provide video programming services. ECI subscribes to a service of Ameritech referred to as the Ameritech Supertrunking Video Service, pursuant to which the signal carrying the video programming that ECI provides to its subscribers runs through Ameritech's facilities before connecting to ECI's facilities inside the private property line. Ameritech provides the service to ECI on a common carriage basis pursuant to Tariff FCC No. 2 and Ameritech complies with all Title H requirements regarding this service. ECI's receipt of this service from Ameritech is governed by the "Ameritech Supertrunking Video Service Confirmation of Service Order," which is attached hereto as Exhibit I (the "Service Order"). The Service Order, which is only a half-page excluding signature lines, demonstrates that Ameritech is not ceding to ECI any control of Ameritech's system, including the fiber through which Ameritech provides the service. There are simply no terms to govern such a transfer in the Service Order, or any where else for that matter, and there is simply no evidence, nor could there be, that such control is being transferred. Ameritech's fiber through which the service is provided is wholly operated and maintained by Ameritech, and any repairs or upgrades to the fiber are performed by Ameritech. Because Ameritech controls the fiber, in many instances ECI's signal is distributed to the properties served by ECI over a circuitous route that runs through one of Ameritech's central offices and takes the signal several miles out of its way. If ECI controlled the fiber, it would run the fiber in a direct route to the properties it serves. The same fiber that Ameritech uses to provide the service to ECI can be used by Ameritech 3 't 1 Y 1 Y r I b _ y ' t to provide the service to numerous other video service providers. In fact, at the point where Ameritech's fiber connects to ECI's facilities -- which is inside the MDU private property line -- Ameritech could use that same fiber to provide the same service to eleven other service providers. There are twelve strands to the fiber that connects to ECI's facilities. Only one of the those twelve strands is used by Ameritech to provide its service to ECI, and Ameritech would need to use only one strand apiece for each of the other eleven service providers. As stated above, Ameritech's fiber connects to ECI's facilities inside the MDU private property boundary. Ameritech's facilities connect to ECI's exterior distribution lines, which connect to ECI's interior building drop cables, which connect to the residents' television sets. ECI will allow any other provider to use its drops for no charge as long as the owner of the property has granted that provider access privileges. On the same basis, ECI will also allow other providers to-use its exterior - distribution lines when and if that is technologically feasible. ECI's facilities are located solely on private property and do not cross any public rights of way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on October 28, 1996, counsel for the East Lansing Cable Commission (the "Cable Commission") in East Lansing, Michigan informed ECI that the Cable Commission believes ECI must obtain a franchise in order to operate in the manner described above. The Cable Commission, however, did not consider any of the arguments set forth herein. Rather, it simply made a conclusory determination that ECI needs a franchise. In addition, on December 2, 1996, the Township Cable Communications Commission of Meridian, Michigan asked ECI to demonstrate why its provision of video programming services under the above-described arrangements with Ameritech does not require a franchise. 4 < < i � . u Unlike ECI, TSC has not yet entered into arrangements with any common carver for a similar service. However, TSC would like to enter into an agreement with a common carrier similar to the Service Order between ECI and Ameritech. TSC intends that the common carrier would retain total control of the fiber and bear complete responsibility for its maintenance and repair. If, as advocated herein, Section 621 does not require ECI or TSC to obtain a franchise in order to provide video programming services pursuant to the type of arrangement discussed above, TSC will initiate efforts to establish such a relationship.'- DISCUSSION I. ECI AND TSC DO NOT NEED FRANCHISES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CABLE OPERATORS A. ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Facilities They Control Are Located Solely On Private Property And They Do Not Have Control Of, Or Bear Responsibility For, The Management And Operation Of Any Common Carriers' Facilities Section 621 prescribes which entities must obtain a franchise from the local franchising authority prior to providing video programming to subscribers. See 47 U.S.C. §541 (b) (1). That section states that only a "cable operator" that is providing "cable service" must obtain a franchise. Id. Therefore, any entity that is not a cable operator has no obligation to obtain a franchise.' A cable operator is "any person or group of persons (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable 1' For ease of reference, TSC's operation is occasionally referenced herein as if TSC is already operating in a manner similar to ECI although TSC has yet to enter into any such arrangements. Y Similarly, any entity that is not providing cable service may serve subscribers without a franchise. 5 ' � 1 4 P N , 9 _ � ., system, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system." 47 U.S.C. §522(5) ("Section 602(5)"). Thus, any entity that does not own a significant interest in a cable system or have control of, or bear responsibility for, the management and operation of such a system is not a "cable operator." Neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to the facilities they utilize or may utilize. More specifically, as shown below, (i) the facilities that are owned or controlled by ECI and TSC are not cable systems, and (ii) the common carrier's facilities that deliver signals to ECI's facilities and would deliver signals to TSC's facilities are not and would not be owned, managed or controlled by ECI or TSC. The facilities that are owned or controlled by ECI and TSC consist of the wiring and associated equipment located solely on the MDU owners' properties, and connecting inside the - private properties to the facilities owned and controlled by the common carriers. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act"), a facility that serves subscribers without using any pubfic rights of way is not a cable system. 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(13). Since these facilities are not cable systems, neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to such facilities because an entity is only a cable operator where it owns, controls, or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable system. 47 U.S.C. §522(5). As to the facilities that are owned by common carriers, these facilities by definition are not owned by ECI or TSC, as neither entity is affiliated with the common carver. In addition, ECI does not, and TSC would not, control the associated common carrier's facilities, or bear responsibility for the management and operation of those facilities. The common carriers' facilities are regulated under Title II and are available to any video programming provider on a non-discriminatory, common 6 i . � c. ,y fi ,1 carriage basis. At all points,`including the point inside the private property line where Ameritech's system connects to ECI's facilities, Ameritech's facilities have capacity sufficient for use by at least eleven other video programming providers. Ameritech's service is in no way confined to ECI on an exclusive basis. Moreover, Ameritech's facilities were built by Ameritech, are maintained by Ameritech, and if there are any problems, are repaired by Ameritech. ECI is not allowed to repair or maintain Ameritech's facilities. In fact, ECI is not ever permitted physically to touch Ameritech's facilities. Thus, Ameritech's facilities are certainly not controlled, managed or operated by ECI. If TSC enters into a similar agreement with a common carrier, the same restrictions and conditions almost certainly would apply. In fact, the issue of whether ECI or TSC should be considered to control or manage the common carriers' facilities under the arrangements described herein is identical in all material respects to one of the issues resolved by the Commission in the Video Dialtone proceedings. Those proceedings related to the Commission's decision to permit telephone-companies (who at that time were barred from offering cable service) to offer a new service called "video dialtone." Telephone companies were authorized to allow customer-programmers to use the telephone companies' facilities to offer video programming. The customer-programmers could provide either single or multichannel services over the telephone companies' facilities, which facilities would be available on a common carriage basis. In re Telephone Company-Cable Television Cross-Ownership Rules Sections 63.54- 58, FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 5781, 5783 n.3 (1992) ("Second Report and Order"). The portion of the ruling in the Video Dialtone proceedings that is dispositive of the issue here is the Commission's finding that the customer-programmers did not need to obtain a franchise to provide their programming over the telephone companies' facilities. In re Telephone Company-Cable Television 7 � � �_ �, ... II� M I i � _ . -: i '� i 4 Cross-Ownership Rules Sections 63 54 58, FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 300, 327-28 !(1991) ("First Report and Order"). The Commission reasoned that the customer-programmers are not cable operators because the customer-programmers neither own a significant interest in the telephone companies'facilities, nor control, or have responsibility for, the management and operation of those facilities. Id. The Commission found that a contrary interpretation would lead to anomalous and impractical results. Id. at 327, 328 n.86. For instance, if the customer-programmers had to obtain a franchise then even "programmers who lease channels pursuant to Section 612 and the public, education and government entities which are provided with cable access would have to obtain a local cable franchise." Id. at 327. Moreover, "it would be extremely onerous for both programmers and franchising authorities to require all programmers using video dialtone facilities to obtain a local franchise." Id. at 328 n.86. In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ("the D.C. Circuit") affirmed this Commission's:findings in the Video Dialtone proceedings. National Cable Televisio � n - Association v. FCC, 33 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("NCTA"). The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Commission's conclusion that customer-programmers of a common carrier video dialtone service are not cable operators, citing the following reasoning of the Commission: Where the "closed transmission paths" and "associated" head-end equipment are owned and controlled by different entities (as in video dialtone), and where different configurations of equipment would be used to move video programming from the different pro-viders to the different customers, the concepts of a single, integrated system and unified control are not present. Id. at 74. The D.C. Circuit also made clear that the customer-programmer's control of the head-end equipment and responsibility for the program selection were not enough to warrant a finding that the 8 Q customer-programmer has control of, or responsibility for, the operation and maintenance of the overall facilities themselves. Id. at 75. ECI is, and TSC would be, in the same position as the customer-programmers in the Video Dialtone proceedings with respect to a lack of control or responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the common carriers' facilities, and therefore neither ECI nor TSC need a franchise for their present or contemplated activities. Like the customer-programmers, ECI uses, and TSC would use, the facilities of a common carrier. Like the customer-programmers, neither ECI nor TSC own or would own any interest in the common carriers' facilities. Like the customer- programmers, neither ECI nor TSC control or would control the common carriers' facilities or bear responsibility for their operation or maintenance. As described above, ECI is not allowed to maintain or repair such facilities and a similar restriction would most likely apply to TSC. .ECI's lack of control is further established by the fact that Ameritech's fiber often does not take a direct route to the property served by ECI, but,instead is first routed to one of Ameritech`s central offices (often several -,f- miles out of the way) before going to the property. If ECI controlled or managed the fiber, it of course would have the fiber run straight to the property rather than take the circuitous route mandated by Ameritech's own uses of the fiber, including the provision of phone service. ECI's and TSC's lack of control and responsibility for the common carriers' facilities cannot be distinguished from the customer-programmers' similar lack of control and responsibility for the telephone companies' facilities in the Video Dialtone proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission's decision in the Video Dialtone proceedings, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, is controlling here. Therefore, ECI and TSC do not need to obtain franchises simply to provide their programming over a common carrier's facilities. 9 0 i 0 Indeed, the arrangement Ameritech has with ECI was contemplated by Congress in the 1996 Act. Under the 1996 Act, telephone companies interested in participating in video markets are expressly authorized to enter into such markets in any one of four ways. 47 U.S.C. §571 ("Section 651"). One of the four options provided to telephone companies under Section 651 is for the common carrier to provide video programming on a common carrier basis. 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(2). That is, common carriers may engage in "common carrier transport of video programming." H.R. Rep. No. 458, at 172 ("Joint Explanatory Statement"). Such common carriage transport of video programming is permitted without the common carrier bearing the burden of the requirements of Title VI so long as the carrier complies with the requirements of Title II and Section 652 of Title VI. 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(2). Here, Ameritech represents that it does and will comply with Title II requirements, as well as Section 652, with respect to providing transport to ECI:- Therefore, the " service provided by Ameritech to ECI, which is undeniably common carrier transport of video programming, is expressly authorized under the 1996 Act. Permitting ECI and TSC to operate in the fashion described herein without obtaining franchises is also consistent with the pro-competitive nature of the 1996 Act. Congress' message was loud and clear: encourage competition in the telecommunications industry in virtually every manner possible. See Joint Explanatory Statement at 113 (Congress wants "to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition"); id. at 172 ("[r]ecognizing that there can be different strategies, services and technologies for entering video markets, the conferees agree to multiple entry options to promote competition, to encourage investment in new technologies and to maximize 10 C ? `1 1 `1 7 1 J 1 . consumer choice of services that best meet their information and entertainment needs"). In light of the pro-competitive nature of the Act, companies such as ECI and TSC certainly should not have their efforts to bring greater competition into the video services market, which has long been dominated by the franchised cable operators, thwarted by the requirement of a franchise where none is needed. Requiring companies in the position of ECI and TSC to obtain franchises will discourage them from competing and most certainly erect roadblocks to municipal or country-wide competition in the MDU marketplace. This anti-competitive result would arise not only because of the cost of obtaining the franchise -- if obtainable at all, but also because of the regulatory burdens that accompany being classified as a cable system, which are often too great to bear for many smaller telecommunications providers. As shown by SCI's circumstances, which are quite common, the reality is that a grant of this - Motion will greatly further competition and a denial of this Motion wi11 serve to reduce competition. To compete effectively with franchised cable operators, alternativ&providers must offer a viable alternative to franchised cable service, including a relatively comparable selection of channels. ECI currently offers 60 channels on its basic service tier, so that it may present meaningful competition to the franchised operator in its markets. With its present utilization of Ameritech's service pursuant to the Service Order, ECI is able to offer, cost-effectively, 60 channel service to properties of 100 or more units, thereby giving all but the smallest of MDU's a choice of providers in the areas where ECI operates. In contrast, if Ameritech's service were unavailable and ECI was required to build a headend on each property, it could only cost-effectively offer 60 channel service to properties of 400 or more units, of which there are very few in the areas where ECI operates. Thus, granting this 11 1 . .� .. . ., . � .rt 1 p. Motion is not only the correct legal result from a statutory construction standpoint, but as ECI's situation shows it will also promote competition in the industry. In sum, neither ECI nor TSC are cable operators with respect to the common carrier's facilities. Therefore, pursuant to Section 621, they do not need to obtain a franchise and the fact that the common carriers'facilities connect or would connect to ECI's and TCC's facilities inside the MDU property line only strengthens this conclusion. B. In The Alternative, ECI And TSC Are Not Cable Operators Because The Common Carriers' Facilities Are Not Cable Systems Since They Do Not Provide Video Programming Directly To Subscribers Finally, even if it could somehow be concluded that ECI and TSC would control or bear responsibility for the maintenance or operation of the common carriers' facilities, ECI'and TSC would not need franchises. As shown above, SCI's and TSC's facilities do not use any public right-of--way, and therefore ECI and TSC•are not cable operators as to those facilities because they are not cable systems. The common carriers' facilities also would not be cable systems because the facilities of common carriers are not deemed to be cable systems except where they are used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers. 47 U.S.C. §522(7)(C)Y Here, the common carriers' facilities are used or would be used only to transmit video programming to SCI's and TCC's facilities, and not directly to subscribers. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in NCTA, a facility transmitting signals from one cable operator to another that stops short of the subscribers' homes is not a cable system in the first place. NCTA, 33 F. 3d at 74. Moreover, there is no question that the common carriers' facilities do not and would not provide video programming "directly" to subscribers since 3' Ameritech is not providing video ro p gramming directly to subscribers. 12 f f Y both facilities connect or would connect to SCI's and TCC's facilities, which then provide the programming to subscribers. "Directly" is defined in Webster's dictionary as "a direct line or way, without intervention." Here, there is intervention because SCI's and TCC's facilities take or would take the signal from the common carriers' facilities and deliver it to subscribers. II. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED TSC WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR A LIMITED DURATION ECI has non-exclusive contracts with the property owners whose properties it serves using Ameritech's service. Therefore, any other video service provider may also utilize Ameritech's service and provide service to the very same properties as ECI with the permission of the property owners. The fact that SCI's contracts are non-exclusive, however, should not make a difference in the ruling to be issued here. Some of TCC's contracts may be exclusive but the fact'of the matter is that all o ,f the analysis set forth above still pertains and TSC would not be a cable operator. The common carrier's facilities would still be offered to any programmer that wants them on a common carriage basis. Thus, other video programming providers could use the same facilities to provide programming to whatever properties at which the property owner grants access. Moreover, TSC would not control, maintain or have responsibility for those facilities in any way. Therefore, TSC would not be a cable operator with respect to those facilities. M. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ECI AND TSC ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CHANNEL-SERVICE, AND THE NEW YORK VIDEO DIALTONE TRIAL, DECISIONS DO NOT AFFECT ECI'S AND TSC'S RIGHTS TO OPERATE WITHOUT A FRANCHISE ECrs and TCC's position herein is not affected by the Commission's previous discussions with respect to Channel Service or by the Commission's decision in In re Application of New York 13 I a r 1 I . . i. ' ._ .. i d � _. . 6 1 Telephone Company. for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended to Construct, O erate Own and Maint4h Facilities and Equipment to Test Video Dialtone Service in Portions of New York City, 8 FCC Rcd. 4325 (1993) (the "New York Video Dialtone Trial"). Channel Service is the provision on a private carrier basis by a local telephone company of video transport services to a franchised cable operator from the cable operator's headend to the subscriber's premises. See In re Telephone Company-Cable Television Cross-Ownership Rules Sections 63.54-58, FCC 87-266, 7 FCC Rcd. 5781, 5787 n.21 (1992) ("Second Report and Order"). While it has generally been accepted that where a cable operator is using Channel Service it needs a franchise,"Channel Service is readily distinguishable from the situation here.. With Channel Service, the cable operator does not use public facilities of the telephone company on a common carrier basis. See NCTA, 33 F.3d at 75. Channel Service facilities are deployed for the exclusive use of the franchised cable operator wlio therefore has the right to exclude all others from the channel capacity that it has leased. Indeed, in contrast to ECI which can be one of twelve entities to use the same fiber, when the cable operator leases the common carriers' facilities under Channel Service , there is no non-leased space left available on those facilities for any other provider to reach the same subscribers. See Id.; In re Application of New York Tele hone Company, for Authority Pursuant to+ Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended to Construct Operate- Own and Maintain Facilities and Equipment to Test Video Dialtone Service in Portions of New York City, Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd. 11548, 11552 n.18 (1995) ("Reconsideration of New York Y This proposition, however, has rarely, if ever, been tested given that cable operators ordinarily have obtained franchises prior to entering into Channel Service agreements. 14 i J 4 Video Dialtone Trial"). Here, in contrast, ECI does not and TSC would not have the right to exclude anyone-- let alone everyone- from the common carriers'facilities, which facilities will accommodate multiple programmers. Moreover, with Channel Service, the franchised operators ordinarily maintain, and often control, the facilities, and therefore are "cable operators" under Section 621 and require a franchise. In the New York Video Dialtone Trial, the Commission permitted New York Telephone Company("NYT") to operate a video dialtone trial with respect to three buildings in New York on which Liberty Cable("Liberty")was already providing service, including one building where Liberty had a bulk service agreement. 8 FCC Rcd. at 4325-27. In that proceeding, NYT's facilities connected to Liberty's coaxial drops and Liberty agreed that for the term of the trial it would allow any other provider to use its drops as well. Id. at 4328-29. Like Liberty; ECI has also agreed to allow all other providers to use its drops at no cost, but neither TSC nor ECI have an obligation to allow others to use their drops.11 For two reasons, Liberty's agreement to allow other providers to use its drops for that video dialtone trial does not mandate that ECI and TSC must do the same here. First, the analysis set forth above, which shows that ECI and TSC are not cable operators with regard to either of the facilities they use or contemplate using, and therefore do not need a franchise, is not reliant on whether ECI or TSC allow others to use their drops on the properties. Second, the decision in the New York Video Dialtone Trial involved a request for a video dialtone trial and not the request sought herein by ECI and TSC. To the extent the Commission I' Ameritech's facilities connect to SCI's feeder lines, which connect to ECI's drops. ECI is willing to allow other providers to use its feeder lines at no cost once such use becomes technically feasible. 15 C a i I 9 1 C P relied on the fact that all end users would have access to all programming on the video dialtone platform in approving the trial, that reasoning has no relevance here not only because the request herein is not a video dialtone request but also because the law has changed since the New York Video Dialtone Trial. The decision in the New York Video Dialtone Trial was rendered prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, and therefore could not and did not take into account the new provisions in the 1996 Act. One of those new provisions, Section 651(a)(2), expressly permits common carriers to provide video programming on a common carrier basis, thereby permitting ECI and TSC to use a common carrier's facilities, for which a franchise is unnecessary given ECI and TSC's lack of control over the facilities. 47 U.S.C. §571 (a) (2).1 Moreover, Section 651(a)(2) does not require that the common carriage transport of the video programming reach all the way to the end user. That is clear from comparing Section 651 a 2 with Section 651(a)(1), which involves common carriers' use of radio-based systems to provide video programming. Section 651(a)(1) applies only where the common cai=rier provides its programming to the subscribers. That section specifically states that it applies where a common carrier is providing video programming "to subscribers" using radio based systems. 47 U.S.C. §571 (a) (1) (emphasis added). In contrast, Section 651(a)(2) does not require that the video programming be provided by the common carrier all the way to the subscriber as it omits the phrase "to subscribers" used in Liberty's inability to make the same arguments raised by ECI and TSC here may be a function not only of the fact that Section 651(a)(2) did not exist at that time but also because the facilities owned and controlled by Liberty would not have been excluded under the definition of a cable system prior to the 1996 Act to the extent those facilities passed multiple dwelling units that were not commonly owned and managed. See Liberty Cable Co v City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), affd, 60 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1262 (1996). 16 i r � . 1 f 0 +{ 1 Section 651(a)(1). In fact, by its express terms, Section 651(a)(2) applies whenever "a common carrier is providing transmission of video programming on a common carrier basis."-'/ Finally, as to ECI, whether any end user on the properties served by ECI will have access to all the video programming offered over Ameritech's system is only dependent upon the property owners giving permission to the video programmers to provide that programming. Simply because a given property owner might not permit some programmer to provide programming on the property owner's property does not mean that those that do provide programming need a franchiseY That is, a property owner's decision as to whether a particular programming provider shall have access to the property owner's property should have no relevance to the issue of whether the other providers who are given access need a franchise. '-' Section 653(a) (3) domes not alter this logic bu't merely provides that where a common carrier is providing video programming to its subscribers and is not doing so under Sections 651(a) (1) or 651(a) (2), it will be subject to Title VI unless it meets certain conditions. Section 651(a) (3) does not state that any programming provided by a common carrier under Section 651 (a) (2) must be provided by the common carrier all the way to the subscribers, which if it were true, would be set forth in Section 651 (a) (2). Moreover, it was unnecessary-- and would have been unwieldy-- for Section 651 (a) (3) to restate that a common carrier operating under Section 651 (a) (2) does not need to provide the programming all the way to the subscribers. In fact, the same argument may be made on behalf of TSC even where it has exclusive contracts, in that but�for those exclusive contracts, all other video programmers would have access to the properties assuming they could obtain permission from the property owners. 4' While neither ECI nor TSC are seeking a Commission determination as to whether Ameritech and the common carrier that may ultimately contract with TSC need a franchise under the circumstances set forth herein, it is clear that they do not. The reasoning employed by the Commission in the Video Dialtone proceedings and the D.C. Circuit in NCTA to reach the conclusion that the carriers of video dialtone do not need franchises is equally applicable here to demonstrate that Ameritech does not need a franchise. 17 i CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, this Commission should to obtain a franchise under Section 621 t d rule that neither ECI nor TSC is required o Provide service in the manner described herein. Respectfully submitted, Deborah C. Cost low Alan G. Fishel Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Its Attorneys 18 At'LERI':CH SUPERTRUNXING VZDEC SERVICr ;clSVs)CCWFIRMAT+ON OF SERVICE O�QYR Suetomer hereby ecknOwledges it3 order of Ameritech Supert� 1ng Vida Servi-¢ (ASVS) , where available Opticna, Parnent Plan. period Of Serviced elected bShOwn below -pep erm• jtht iY the :hie order is intended to aer'" as R conf irmA tomar the C:+scoc�er' s selaet:on of the Service Lion of 5ervicr Li provided pursuant t,, lce sad _h• OFF Tt indicacac below. The list forth and controlled by, the torme and con LI. =n applicable tariff re&ulations with regsrj to the � ditiaua service r.gulacions, rated charged, the liabili: wnich Service is pr�;aioaed and au Sahara. maintain (P. C, y• and the mAnnar in C. Na . Z) , 'he re;ea and charRaa apecit:td in c Ous[omar will a the ea.if. for the OpT Term selected bT Amtrlttch initiaped changes ni Monthly rates will be e1;Ditc; to g provided :hat the m°nth17 rate rc. Teri or decreaaeal during the OPP shall not exceed t'-Zat in effect at the `&Kianing of the OPP Tern. at ,, Customer ce:aina ch• ASVS wichout Se7dctinl alnrvon ot��e OPP Terra, the , auto":icaliy be converted co a,oatb,_ g ' thit Service vili CO-monta service. OPP 'eras Selected, s� 12 Month: 6 Kfttha 6[U1 Xareh Rd. (NAME OF CUSTO?SEAy f .7�0 = AMERITECH I870RHATION L`(DUSTAY 2XIVICES ON AZEALF OF J �uiLCEi-I:.LIKO IS C;Jijag na turd o E Cuatocnar signature of Aa,drrl:ech Printed Name Printed Name CaLt Date i a � . f I Yahoo! :High Court Upholds Cable Television Law hftp://www.yahoo.con/headlines/970331/politics/stories/cable_2.html .._.: EUT NEVIS [Yahoo I Write Us I Search I Info ] [ Index I News I World I Biz I Tech I Politic I Snort I Scoreboard I Entertain Health ] Previous Story: King Hussein Said Hopeful on Middle East Peace Next Story: Children Scamper on WHouse Lawn for Egg Roll Monday March 31 7:21 PM EST High Court Upholds Cable Television Law WASHINGTON (Reuter) -In a major victory for television broadcasters, the Supreme Court Monday upheld a federal law forcing cable-TV operators around the country to carry local TV station broadcasts. The high court, in a 5-4 decision that surprised many legal experts, affirmed a ruling by three federal judges that the so-called "must-carry" provisions of a 1992 cable-TV law do not violate the cable industry's free-speech rights. Cable operators, who reach 64 percent of U.S. households, charged that the law amounted to illegal censorship and violated their right to select programming. But broadcasters and the Justice Department defended the law, arguing that many cable operators would otherwise dump local stations in favor of cable programs that could generate more advertising dollars. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, arguing on behalf of the Clinton administration,told the high court last fall it was "critical" for the government to maintain a "robust array of quality" broadcast programming. The law-- implemented by the Federal Communications Commission -- requires cable systems to devote up to a third of their channels to local public and private stations that offer such fare as home-shopping, religious and "infomercial" programs. The shows are beamed via low-power stations. Writing for the high court,Justice Anthony Kennedy said the must-carry provisions are consistent with the First Amendment and agreed that they promote "important" government interests. He also agreed with the government that the laws provisions "do not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests." But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion, charged that the majority's legal analysis was flawed. She also argued that the majority showed "an extraordinary and unwarranted deference" for judgments by Congress, a profound fear of delving into complex economic matters, and a willingness to substitute untested assumptions for evidence." The decision came as a shock to many. Most legal experts had expected the high court to rule against the broadcasters, based on the skepticism voiced by several justices toward the government's oral agnnnent before the court last fall. "We're obviously disappointed, and frankly a little surprised," said Decker Anstrom,president of the National Cable Television Association. 1 of 2 04/01/97 16:44:20 1 i fi �5:. � I I .. 7 i V i ) i� i i 1 Yahoo!-,High Court Upholds Cable Television Law http://www.yahoo.coni/headlinesl970331/politics/stories/cable 2.html Anstrom said that even before the 1992 law, "cable systems carried virtually every local broadcast station." Broadcasters were ecstatic. "We're elated the Supreme Court has recognized the historic importance of preserving free over-the-air television for all Americans," said Edward Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters. Jim Popham, of the Association of Local Television Stations, said that in the absence of the must-carry provisions, "it was clear that there were stations at risk." Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that represents citizens groups, said the decision "underscores the special privileges broadcasters receive." It also strengthens the Federal Communications Commission's power to force broadcasters to provide free time for political candidates -- among other public-interest obligations -- in exchange for digital-TV licenses the FCC is expected to dole out free of charge to TV stations later this week, Schwartzman added. Earlier Related Stories ❑ Supreme Court Upholds Cable Television Law - Mon Mar 31 1:23 pm Help Previous Story: King Hussein Said Hopeful on Middle East Peace Next Story: Children Scamper on WHouse Lawn for Egg Roll [ Index I News I World I Biz I Tech I Politic I Sport I Scoreboard I Entertain I Health ] Copyright© 1997 Reuters Limited.All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content,or for any actions taken in reliance thereon Questions or Comment E f 2of2 04/01/97 16:44:53 �' i e i f f' .. f � � i i i .. 1 � �� i1 _ i z 1 � � i f. 1 f _ i 1 i � ' � _ r i 1 , i � 1 i f i 1� � � �i III Y 77777777=- commisslo ELEA SE . COMMISSIONERS CONTACT: John G. Strand, Chairman Dorothy Wideman John C. Shea Mary Jo Kunkle David A. Svanda (517) 334-6983 LANSING, April 4. The Michigan Public Service Commission today approved TCG Detroit's February 6, 1997 application to expand its area for providing basic local telephone service. TCG, currently authorized to provide basic local telephone service to customers in several southeastern Michigan telephone exchanges, may now provide local telephone service in the Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw and Grand Rapids LATA exchanges* currently served by Ameritech Michigan and GTE North Incorporated. The Commission concluded that increasing customer choice for local telephone service was in the public interest. TCG Detroit was granted a license to provide basic local telephone service in the Detroit, Birmingham and Southfield District exchanges on April 27, 1995. The Commission granted TCG Detroit's request to expand its license to the Farmington, West Bloomfield, Auburn Heights, Warren, Pontiac, Royal Oak, Plymouth, Centerline, Livonia, Northville, Rochester, Utica, Walled Lake, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne, Troy and Romulus exchanges on April 26, 1996. The Commission approved, by a 2-1 vote, an interconnection agreement between TCG Detroit and Ameritech Michigan on November 1, 1996. The interconnection agreement covers the rates, terms, and conditions under which TCG Detroit provides local telephone service by connecting with Ameritech Michigan's network. TCG Detroit is headquartered in Staten Island, New York. The Michigan Public Service Commission is an agency within the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. Case No. U-11316 April 4, 1997 (TCG Detroit's basic local telephone service license expansion) *LATAs.are geographic areas similar in size and location to an area code. There are five LATAs in Michigan: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Saginaw and Upper Peninsula. Exchanges are geographic boundaries within the LATAs that define customers' local calling areas. (MPSC press releases are available on the world wide web @ http://ermisweb.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc) -- i - �, '� � z 4 h r' I l' I I TUB COMMISSION: ,NEW,,- , S .. RELEASE COMMISSIONERS CONTACT: John G. Strand, Chairman Dorothy Wideman John C. Shea Mary Jo Kunkle David A. Svanda (517) 334-6983 LANSING,April 4. The Michigan Public Service Commission today took action to further increase customer choice for Michigan telephone customers by granting licenses to two companies to provide basic local telephone service. KMC Telecom Inc. received a license to provide basic local telephone service in all telephone exchanges currently served by Ameritech Michigan and GTE North Incorporated. A.R.C. Network, Inc. received a license to provide basic local telephone service in the Detroit and Grand Rapids LATA exchanges* currently served by Teleport Communications Group and Brooks Fiber Communications. KMC Telecom Inc. and A.R.C. Networks, Inc. filed an application with the Commission to provide basic local telephone service on December 27, 1996 and January 15, 1997 respectively. In approving the two requests, the Commission found that competition for local telephone service is advantageous to Michigan citizens. KMC and A.R.C. join a rapidly growing list of companies that have received a competing license to provide basic local telephone service in Michigan. Companies that have previously received approval to provide basic local telephone service in Michigan include: MCI Metro Access Services, TCG Detroit, MFS Intelenet, AT&T, WinStar Wireless, USN Communications, Brooks Fiber Communications, Continental Telecommunications, LCI International Telecom Inc., ACI Inc., Climax Telephone Company, BRE Communications, Comcast Telephony, Comcast MH Telephony, Coast to Coast Telecommunications, Inc., Tele-Phone-Communications, Cypress and Building Communications, Inc. KMC and A.R.C. will be able to begin providing basic local telephone service after each has finalized interconnection arrangements with other local telephone service providers. Interconnection arrangements will allow KMC and A.R.C. customers to make local calls to, and receive calls from, customers of other local telephone service providers. KMC is headquartered in Bedminister, New Jersey. AA-C. is headquartered in Hauppauge, New York. -more- i _3 � s I I .. I i N w r CITY OF LANSING Interoffice Communication 1 Lansing City Council cHiG � TO: Ellen M. Beal, Council President; Harold J. Leeman, Jr., Council Vice-President; and Councilmembers FROM: Marc O. Thomas, Chair, Cable Advisory Board DATE: July 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Response to Letter of Complaint about Rising Cable Rates Please find attached for your information a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Ray Koivisto from the City Attorney's office in response to his letter of concern about rising cable rates. If you have any questions on this matter, feel free to contact me. :tah Attachment i o 41 CityofLansing Office of the City Attorney James D.Smlertka Jack C.Jordan City Attorney Chief Deputy City Attorney John M.Roberts,Jr. Wendel V.Hall Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Brian W.Bevez Billie J.O'Berry Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Wm."Burt"Burleson May 13 1997 Margaret E.Vroman Associate City Attorney Associate City Attorney Via Facsimile Transmission & U.S. First-Class Mail Senator John McCain 241 Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510-0303 Dear Senator McCain: During the last session, the 1 Oe Congress passed two bills, among others, which were of monumental importance to municipalities across the United States. One was the Unfunded Federal Mandate Legislation. The other was the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which, among other things, preserved municipal control over the streets and highways and their ability to obtain fair compensation for the use of their public right-of- way. I understand you will shortly be holding a hearing on this Telecommunications Act which may consider claims presented by cable and telephone companies that they contend they should be able to use our nations streets and highways free of charge and without any municipal control over such usage. It is vital that you reject these claims. Municipal control over. the streets and highways is vital for several reasons, including but not limited to public safety. Further, allowing cable or telephone companies to take and utilize millions of miles of municipal streets and highways where they do not currently have lines, such as the commercial and industrial areas where cable companies lack such technology, would violate the unfunded federal mandates statute, as well as the property rights provisions of the Constitution. The 1041h Congress appropriately addressed the issues in the 1996 Telecommunications Act which took the Federal Communications Commissions out of the local property rights and right-of-way management business. It kept the authority where it belongs,that being municipalities, while preventing local actions which prohibit the entry of new telecommunication companies. We're Making it--fappen- 5lh Floor.City Hall • Lansing, Michigan 48933 • (517)483-4320 • FAX(517)483-4081 rr VATTY,;,rt l.AN.O[Nr, nil tiS Page Two Senator John McCain May 13, 1997 In the 1996 Act, Congress did not give the FCC any condemnation authority over municipal property, let alone the authority to take property without compensation as the telephone and cable companies desire. Local control of the public rights-of-way and the ability to receive fair compensation for the use of municipal property is essential. Please, we urge you to reject the cable and telephone companies demand to reopen these provisions of the 1996 Act. Cordially, a k C. Jordan C ief Deputy C Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Senator Spencer Abraham Senator Carl Levin .. J tic c-7 y of L ansinq !c" t G U91, Office of the City Attorney James D.Smiertka Jack C.Jordan City Attorney Chief Deputy City Attorney John M. Roberts.Jr. Wendel V.Hail Depuly City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Brian W.Bevez Billie J.O'Betry Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Wm.`Burt-Burleson June 20, 1997 Margaret E.Vroman Associate City Attorney Associate City Attorney Mr. Ray Koivisto 313 East Edgewood Apt. #6 Lansing, MI 48911 Re: Rising Cable Rates Dear Mr. Koivisto: This is to follow-up on your correspondence, dated March 12, 1997, which was received by the City Council on March 18, 1997, regarding the above-captioned matter. I wish to extend my apologies for the delay in responding to your letter,but due to personnel changes on the Council staff this matter was diverted in my direction. I hope the information that I convey to you in this letter will be of service in explaining the recent cable costs increase in the City of Lansing. As you probably are aware,the City of Lansing has an ordinance regarding this subject, that being Chapter 810 of the Codified Ordinances, entitled"Cable Television." Section 810.01 states the"purpose of this Chapter is to provide fair regulation of cable television service of the City in the public interest,to promote and encourage adequate,economical and efficient cable television service to the residents of the City, to promote and to encourage harmony between cable television companies and their subscribers and to provide for the furnishing of cable television systems service to residents of the City without unjust discrimination or undue preferences or advantages." Although the City is committed to promoting and encouraging"adequate, economical and efficient cable television service"to the residents of Lansing, it does not control such rate increases. These increases are the jurisdiction of and determined by the Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") in Washington D.C. However, as the Ordinance states, the City wants "to promote and encourage harmony" between cable television companies and you, the subscriber. The City does not want the cable companies that serve our community to provide poor service to the residents or to discriminate how that service is provided. Before the Media One (formally known as Continental Cablevision) or any other cable television company can provide cable television service to residents of the City, they must first We're MaCrng It7-fappen" 5th Floor, City Hall - Lansing. Michigan 48933 - (517)483-4320 - FAX(517)483-4081 C`VrVA'If,.V`f r Anrcrnr(` BAT 1rC Page 2 Mr. Ray Koiviso June 20, 1997 obtain a franchise from the City as mandated by Section 810.03 of the Cable Television Ordinance. The rates and charges that a cable company such as Media One can charge, Section 810.09(a) states as follows: However,this provision shall not be deemed to prohibit the establishment of a graded scale of charges and classification of rates to which any subscriber coming within may be entitled." (b) "No rate or charge for cable television service provided in the City shall be effective, and no cable television company shall advertise,collect or receive any rates or charge for its service,until such company has filed a complete schedule of rates and charges with the City Clerk. (c) ". . . All rates charges and rate structures of a cable television company shall be exempt from regulation or control by the City, except for the monthly rate and installation rate established herein for community cablevision. . . ." The cable television company is exempt from control of the City except for the community Cablevision service which is defined as "a community information service consisting of several channels providing governmental,educational and public access programming."(See Section 810.02 (d))• Media One applied for these rate increases,effective February 1, 1997,with the Federal FCC. The new rates were calculated in accordance with the FCC's rate regulations and their approved rate- setting procedures. These increases are the result of adjustments in the prices Media One must pay program suppliers such as CAN, ESP, and Discovery, additional fees it paid for newly added channels, and for increased inflation,operating cost, and FCC regulatory fees. Further, Media One continues to significantly improve the cable network, including but not limited to, the installation of fiber optic technologies. It is my understanding that in late December of 1996 or early January of 1997, a copy of the notice of new rates were mailed to each customer of Media One. I have included a copy of that notice for your review once again. It should be noted that Media One is striving to provide the best possible value to its customers, as it set the above total price for the rebuilt areas at least 80 cent per month less than the maximum FCC permitted rate. No one wants to pay more for anything, however, as new technological breakthroughs are made available to us, the public, the rates for such services are going to increase. However, it bears repeating that the City of Lansing does not control how much these rates are increased, as this is the responsibility of the FCC. Page 3 Mr. Ray Koivisto June 20, 1997 These are the reasons for the new rates being charged by Media One. I hope that this explanation is helpful to you in making a decision to continue using Media One in the future. If you have any further questions or concerns as it pertains to this matter, please feel free to contact me. Cordially, J c C. Jordan of Deputy Ci Attorney JCJ/mrr cc: Marc Thomas, Telecommunication and Cable Advisory Board Chair Maureen Daugherty-Rosenbaum, Manager of Corporate Affairs of Media One JOHN McCAIN 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BU ARIZONA WASHINGTON. DC 20510-031 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, 12021 224-2235 AND TRANSPORTATION united ������ � ��� 1839 SOUTH ALMA SCHOOL R� COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SUITE 375 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS MESA, 85210 16021 4 9 1-4300 2400 EAST ARIZONA BILTMORE CIRCLE June 9, 1997 SUITE 1150 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 (602) 952-2410 450 WEST PASEO REDONDC Mr . Jack C. Jordan SUITE 200 Chief Deputy City Attorney TUCSON. 0 85701 6334 15201 67 -633a City of Lansing 5 t h Floor TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPA R 021 224-7132 City Hall 16021952-0170 Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Mr . Jordan : Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ' s hearing on the issue of preemption, which was originally scheduled for May 13, 1997 . Unfortunately, this hearing had to be postponed due to multiple scheduling conflicts. Federal preemption of state and local telecommunications policy as it relates to Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an issue that would have been addressed at the hearing. While I understand your concerns, the 1996 Act does not usurp non-federal authority to govern local rights-of-way. Section 253 (c) states: Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. Sections 253 (c ) preserves State and local governments' ability to control their rights-of-way. A number of preemption cases now awaiting decision by the Federal Communications Commission involve the issue of exercising regulation of streets and rights-of-way in a manner which arguably impedes competition in contravention of the 1996 Act . I have expressed my concern over the length of time these matters have been pending at the FCC, and I will work to see that the Commission decides these cases promptly and responsibly. Page 2 I intend to reschedule the May 13th hearing to assure the FCC discharges this obligation. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this or any other matter of concern . Sin rel , ohn McCain United States Senator JM/jfd CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION OF MICHIGAN, INC. May 5, 1997 Jack Jordan, Chief Deputy City Attorney 124 W. Michigan Sth Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mr. Jordan: I am in receipt of your April 18th, 1997 correspondence Council President, Ellen Beal regarding Interne access ess to Lansing City and Net Day '97. ansing schools After receiving the letter, I was concerned about some have the potential for creating inaccuracies that regard to our Social Contract obligati ois and standings in the future with '97 -Lansing. participation in Net Day I am writing, however, to clear up what appears to be a my rebuild update in the last cable board meetin misunderstanding of g you attended in April. The letter to Ms. Beal states: "Continental will complete i converting Lansing to fiber optics, by July of 1997. 11 Thn ilt sstem, entirely accurate. Conti is statement ts re nental is hoping to com p lete a in not Lansing rebuild by July, 1997 As I stated in the April C fg Por .tzon of its Engineering and Construction portion of the re meeting, the completed by the end of July. This is only the first step tes scheduled to be array of broadband services to out customers in Lansing. c bringing the full After construction is takes over. completed, the Customer Care portion of t Customer Care includes takingthe old he rebuild drop swings) and switching lines to the new systemcaEa h ho down (i.e., will be door tagged with specific information relevant to their se in the area installation of 1401 E. Miller Road P.O, Box 30280 • Lansing Michigan 48909-7780 Phone (517) 394-0001 Continents/ Cablevision is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. the new system. RE boxes (plastic protection boxes that house our electronics) will be placed at the point where our cable enters the home. Continental representatives will place a door tag at each home as it gets changed to the new services. The door tag will include the phone number for the installation company and a new channel line-up card. This tag also informs the customer that a marketing representative will be contacting them soon to set up an appointment to familiarize the customer with our new services and offer them a Smart Box. A Smart Box allows for the reception of scrambled channels such as Pay-Per-View movies, live events and premium channels. We offer a 30-day free trial for the Smart Box and will attempt to contact the customer three times to schedule the familiarization appointment. As you might imagine, getting all of our customers "up to speed" on the new network and services offered will take additional time. The letter goes on to state: 'As this condition precedent of"(w)ithin one year of the commercial availability of a Continental on-line service for personal computers... "is going to occur this year, Continental is on track to achieve its goal of providing all the Lansing Elementary and High Schools, both public and private, with on-line service to the Internet." While Continental looks forward to providing Internet services to schools in and around the Lansing area via its rebuilt system, these services will only be provided once they are "commercially available" to regular subscribers. While the rebuilt system will have the technical capacity to provide high speed data, (Internet access service,) the decision to provide those services is one that will be made by our High Speed Data group based upon market conditions in Lansing. Once high speed data services are available to subscribers over Continental's Lansing network, then we will, of course, meet our commitment to provide each public and private Title One school one free Internet access account, free high speed Internet access over Continental's network during the school year, one free cable modem, and teacher training. Having said all of that, Continental Cablevision is hopeful that our rebuild will be entirely completed in the City of Lansing by this fall. This schedule is contingent upon many factors, however, we are working aggressively to meet it. Once the system is capable of offering more products, we intend to provide high speed Internet access to Lansing schools by the end of 1998, assuming everything goes as planned and the service is commercially available shortly after the rebuild is completed. I hope this letter clears up any misunderstanding. It has been a pleasure working with you, Jack, and a pleasure to have had you as a guest at one of our Continental Cablevision "field trips." Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions, comments or concerns. I look forward to seeing you at the next cable board meeting in May. ikind regard, i aureen Daugherty cc: Ellen Beal, President Harold Leeman, Vice President Sandy Allen, Councilmember Paul Novak, Councilmember Howard Jones, Councilmember Joan Bauer, Councilmember Tony Benavides, Councilmember Rick Lilly, Councilmember James Smiertka, City Attorney Dave Weiner, Mayor's Office Marc Thomas, CAB Chair I y. � -•