Draft Ascertainment Report

DRAFT ASCERTAINMENT REPORT
OF COMMUNITY CABLE-RELATED
NEEDS AND INTERESTS AND
ASSESSMENT OF TCI/AT&T’S

PAST PERFORMANCE

 

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This draft report identifies the future, cable-related needs and interests of the City of Boulder. It also reviews the past performance of Boulder’s current cable TV operator, AT&T Broadband (“AT&T”) (formerly Telecommunications, Inc., or “TCI”), under its cable TV franchise, dating back to 1982.

The City is required to identify future, cable-related needs and interests and to assess cable operator past performance under the renewal/non-renewal procedures of federal law, 47 U.S.C. 546. Once the City completes its “ascertainment” of future needs and interests and assessment of past performance, it will require AT&T to submit a formal renewal proposal. AT&T must then submit a proposal that responds to the City’s ascertainment in a manner that satisfies the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 546. If the proposal does not satisfy the federal criteria, the City will not renew the franchise. If the proposal does satisfy the federal criteria, the City must renew the franchise. This report, therefore, satisfies the City’s initial obligations under the federal renewal/non-renewal process.

After this report is adopted, the City will issue a request for renewal proposals to AT&T. The City also will have to negotiate an initial cable TV franchise with US West, which has been issued a permit to begin construction of a cable TV system associated with its existing telecommunications infrastructure, pending completion of this ascertainment. A relatively new company, Wide Open West, also has indicated its desire and willingness to compete with AT&T. This requires an immediate response. To protect the City’s position in the federal renewal/non-renewal process with AT&T, the City will seek to negotiate similar franchises with all potential competitors, based on this ascertainment. However, the City takes the position that initial franchises are not subject to the renewal/non-renewal procedures of federal law and shall not be compared to any renewal franchise.

Citizens may wonder why the City is going through this process at all, since a proposed AT&T renewal franchise was rejected by the Boulder electorate in 1996. The answer lies in a series of federal laws enacted between 1984 and 1996. Under federal law, communities and cable operators must resolve renewal issues by informal negotiations or, if that fails, by going through a federally-mandated legal process that will be described in this report as the “formal process.” The franchise rejected by voters in 1996 was a negotiated franchise. Because the City and the cable operator were not able to resolve renewal issues through informal negotiations to the satisfaction of the electorate, the issues must now be resolved through the formal process. And, as stated above, the essence of the formal process is a determination by the City Council, reviewable by a federal court, of whether or not AT&T’s formal renewal proposal responds to this ascertainment in a manner that satisfies the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 546.

It is important to understand that the renewal/non-renewal process established under federal law is not a competitive process. The City cannot deny AT&T’s proposal because some other entity is willing to provide more than AT&T is willing to provide. Nor can the City refuse to act on AT&T’s renewal request and allow the franchise to expire. However, the formal process does require AT&T to submit a proposal “reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.” Thus, by identifying needs and interests accurately and completely, the City places itself in a position to demand that AT&T submit a proposal satisfactory to the community -- or face non-renewal.

As required by federal law, this report identifies future cable-related needs and interests. It is clear that the businesses and residents of the City of Boulder have many important communications-related needs and interests, and this report is not intended to minimize those needs and interests. However, the federal law requirement is that the City focus on identifying cable-related needs and interests, including broadband Internet access. Other interests will not be mentioned in this report.

Under federal law, there are subjects for which a municipality must establish requirements in a cable TV Request for Renewal Proposal (“RFRP”); subjects (such as the key subjects of rates,programming and technology) on which federal law precludes municipal requirements; and subjects on which a municipality may act unilaterally. Among the latter are: Consumer satisfaction, franchise fee, franchise enforcement and administration, renewal term, and transfer of ownership. In addition to the matters set forth in this ascertainment, the City proposes to require cable operators to satisfy the requirements contained in a model franchise (the proposed Wide Open West franchise is attached to this ascertainment as Attachment A). Operators also will be required to satisfy a model cable ordinance (attached to this ascertainment as Attachment B). The provisions that are included in the model franchise and in the model cable ordinance are justified by and consistent with the needs and interests of the Boulder community. However, in the City’s view, these requirements are not subject to a “needs and interests” test, since setting the requirements of the basic regulatory structure for cable TV in the City involves an exercise of the City’s basic police and governmental powers.

For reasons explained elsewhere in this report, and as demonstrated by the ascertainment record, and the experience of the Boulder community since the last franchise renewal in 1982, the City of Boulder concludes that the Boulder community’s future, cable-related needs and interests include:

SUMMARY OF FUTURE, CABLE-RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS

SECTION 1 SYSTEM FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES

1) There is a need and interest that all future cable TV systems be adaptable to changing community needs and changes in technology.

See Section 1.01 of the ascertainment document.

2) There is a need and interest for facilities and equipment of ample bandwidth. Broadband cable TV systems are now being designed and installed at 836 to 860 MHz. Broadband systems provide the substantial capacity, reliability and flexibility necessary to respond to changes in cable TV that can be expected over a new franchise term, including high definition television and digital television. Broadband equipment and facilities will maximize consumer choices and ease of equipment operation and will allow cable operators to respond promptly to customer demands for channels delivered in various formats without additional substantial upgrades. Based on these considerations, the City finds that the community needs 836 to 860 MHz systems, with fiber to the node, small nodes, and minimal active components in any cascade, or systems with similar characteristics in terms of upstream and downstream capacity deliverable to each customer, reliability, upgradeability and the like.

See Sections 1.01, 1.03[6], 106 and 5 of the ascertainment document.

3) In addition, there is a significant need and interest in ensuring that the facilities are upgraded as technology changes and consumer demands increase. Any franchise should therefore include enforceable provisions that give some leverage to ensure that each operator provides the facilities and equipment required to keep pace with technological developments over the franchise term. At a minimum, this includes “review points” during the franchise term and/or term shortening in addition to liquidated damages for contract noncompliance.

See Sections 1.01, 1.03[6], 106 and 5 of the ascertainment document.

4) There is a need and interest for state-of-the-art facilities and equipment that will permit cable operators to respond quickly and effectively to outages, requests for service, and customer complaints, and will permit operators to monitor their own performance effectively, so that they are able to deliver consistently high-quality service to their customers.

See Section 1.03[6] of the ascertainment document.

5) There is a need and interest in having cable TV available in schools, libraries and other public buildings, so that those entities and the public being served can receive educational and governmental services provided over cable TV at no charge.

See Section 2 of the ascertainment document.

6) There is a need and interest in each cable TV system being fully capable of providing two-way services, with the equipment and programming in place required to support two-way advanced cable services such as broadband Internet access via the cable system as well as live, original programming from locations throughout the City. Further, cable systems should be designed so that as demand increases, systems can increase the amount of upstream and downstream capacity available to customers quickly (by “splitting” nodes, for example), without the need for substantial new construction.

See Sections 1.01, 1.03[6], 106 and 5 of the ascertainment document.

7) There is a need and interest in allowing customers to receive signals in substantially the same form in which they are received by the cable operator. E.g., Color television signals should be received by customers in color; stereo signals should be received by customers in stereo; secondary audio signals should be receivable by all customers; and closed-captioned signals should be preserved for all customers.

See Section 1.02 and 1.04 of the ascertainment document.

8) There is a need and interest for Internet facilities and equipment capable of providing speeds of at least 394 Kbs in both directions. As noted above, the system must be flexible enough to increase the capacity deliverable to and from customers over time, without substantial system upgrades.

See Sections 1.01, 1.03[6], 106 and 5 of the ascertainment document.

9) There is a need and interest for open access to broadband, cable-based Internet service. There is a substantial basis for concluding the without “open access,” Internet innovation and consumer choice will be harmed, and competition in this important new cable service will be reduced. An open access requirement ensures that customers may choose the entity that will provide access to the Internet; prevents the cable operator from leveraging its control over the cable system to control high-speed access to the Internet; and ensures that competition in the provision of this service (with the associated price and innovation benefits) is not impeded. There is a need and interest in avoiding all these harms, and (as noted above) a need and interest in fostering infrastructure that can support broadband access to the Internet for residences, businesses, government, educational institutions and non-profit organizations. However, it is conceded that while there is a “need and interest” in open access, there is a substantial national debate as to the best way to achieve “open access,” and whether “open access” requirements can be required in a franchise.

See Section 1.03[1] of the ascertainment document.

10) If a cable operator provides a cable modem platform for commercial use, there is a need and interest that:

a) Customers should have a choice of affiliated and unaffiliated Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).

b) Unaffiliated ISP interconnection to the cable modem platform should be provided on terms and conditions that do not discriminate in favor of an affiliated ISP, and that do not tie access to the purchase of Internet backbone transport service from the cable operator or its ISP affiliate. If the operator chooses to do so, it may provide different levels of access to the cable modem platform, so long as each level is provided on non-discriminatory terms and conditions. Access to any level should not be conditioned on granting an ownership interest in the ISP to the cable operator.

c) The cable modem platform may be used for voice, video or data and to this end should be designed so that packet loss and latency issues are minimized. Any restrictions based on the nature of the use should be applied uniformly, in a manner consistent with necessary and neutral network management.

See Section 1.03[2] of the ascertainment document.

11) Whether or not a cable operator provides a cable modem platform for commercial use, there is a need and interest that:

a) All operators should provide a cable modem platform, or local access to a cable modem platform, for public, educational and governmental use, and sufficient upstream and downstream capacity (whether on a dedicated or shared basis) so that advanced public, educational and governmental cable services can be delivered at speeds and with a quality comparable to the speed and quality with which commercial cable services are provided via cable modem platforms. For example, the Boulder Community Network provides an Internet function similar to the functions performed by a traditional access center: It facilitates the use of a communications medium by persons who traditionally have had limited access to communications media. To the extent that a cable system can be used to provide interactive digital signals to the home via a cable modem platform (or otherwise), there is a need and interest in having useable, dedicated capacity or an access equivalent to that provided by dedicated capacity available for public, educational and governmental use.

b) The upstream capacity of each network should be available so that customers can act as sources of non-commercial information, subject to reasonable limitations consistent with necessary and neutral network management. Cable systems should be designed so that upstream capacity can be expanded over time to meet customer demand.

See Section 1.03[2] of the ascertainment document.

12) There is a need and interest to link City facilities and other public buildings and public, educational and governmental sites (including schools, libraries, public safety facilities, performance venues, and others) with reliable and secure capacity on a City institutional network for a variety of two-way video, voice and high-speed data communications.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

13) There is a need and interest for all current and future cable operators to have joint responsibilities for providing institutional network capacity for educational and government use, and a need and interest in having all current and future cable operators have joint responsibilities for public, educational and governmental channels and support. In a competitive market, there is no assurance that all providers will survive, or that all providers that obtain a franchise will actually enter the market. Therefore, institutional networks must be designed so that they are available no matter which or how many operators are providing service. If the City is able to construct an institutional network, as currently projected in the Wide Open West permit and franchise drafts, there is a need and interest for all current and future cable operators to share roughly proportionally, as determined over time by the City, in providing, equipping and maintaining the institutional network. If cable operators are willing to share in a single City institutional network, duplication of facilities may be avoided.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

14) There is a need and interest that cable operators contribute to the City institutional network in different forms (including construction of lines, provision of termination equipment, and provision of support costs), as determined over time by the City.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

15) There is a need and interest in ensuring that all institutional networks function seamlessly, with uniform service quality, and with coordinated operations and maintenance. To the extent possible, this need and interest should be met by making a single entity, the City, responsible for assembling, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining an institutional network in order to parcel out roughly proportional exactions over time, assure payment of capital and operating expenses, and ensure maintenance of a universal standard for service quality and availability in a multiple-cable-operator and multiple-institutional-user environment. Alternatively, coordination needs to be achieved between the City and multiple cable operators to achieve the same performance standard.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

16) There is a need and interest for sufficient capacity available on the institutional network so that institutional network locations can use the system simultaneously, without interference. There is a need and interest for capital funding to allow PEG users to use the institutional network. This ascertainment concludes that $.15/account/month should be assessed for this purpose.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

17) Educational and governmental institutional network users should be able to use the institutional network for voice, video or data communications, at no charge to the user. If the institutional network is used to transport programming for public access use, that use should also be at no charge. The network design should support the use of legacy equipment (for example, analog video equipment for the transmission of video programming); use of the network as part of an ATM system; and interconnection and seamless interoperability of the system with government and school networks. Thus, there is a need and interest for institutional network infrastructure that allows for both discrete networking services by participating user organizations and, where appropriate, shared multi-user networks. For example, organizations such as the public schools should be able to operate a private network to link high schools with high schools, middle schools with middle schools, if desired. Similarly, users with special communications needs such as the public library system should be able to set up special library-to-library connections. At the same time, the network should support the shared type of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) service provided by the City’s Information Technology Department and should not preclude extension of the shared ATM network as appropriate.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

18) There is a need and interest for institutional network capacity sufficient to support reasonable future user requirements. The City has sought to assemble or construct a six-fiber “backbone” throughout the community. This is known as the City’s “ring network,” and the City hopes to keep to a six-or-greater-fiber standard on the ring network. The “star network” to be built to link public, educational and governmental locations to a single “hub” initially will be constructed with two fibers to each location, but these fibers will not be shared. And more fibers may be constructed to locations where more traffic is anticipated. Educational and governmental users should be able to increase the capacity used, and to change the way in which particular locations use the institutional network over time, as needs and interests change, through the addition of equipment on the user premises and at the headend. There is a need and interest in having access to the facilities of each cable operator so that this need and interest can be satisfied.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

19) There is a need and interest for an institutional network with scalable and expandable capacity, and with an architecture designed to facilitate extension to new locations without deterioration in system capabilities.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

20) There is a need and interest in utilizing an open architecture for the institutional network so that users are not restricted to specific interface equipment or services.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

21) There is a need and interest for the institutional network components to be developed by cable operators to interface with and complete the City’s existing fiber optic “ring” network.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

22) There is a need and interest for constructing a “star” architecture (with fibers connecting to a single City “hub”) to create linkages between public, educational and governmental sites.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

23) There is need and interest for all government and educational users to be able to control and route signals easily, without significant costs or assistance from the cable operator, to and from all institutional networks, and other networks to which the institutional network is connected.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

24) There is a need and interest for the institutional network to support broadband integrated services, including two-way voice, data, and video transmissions, and to be connected to the Internet and all cable operators’ cable modem platforms.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

25) There also is a need and interest for the institutional network to support lower capacity applications, such as utility monitoring telemetry, and occasional point-to-point video applications at selected sites with special attention to minimizing the cost of end-user equipment and interfaces.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

26) There is a need and interest for the institutional network to be designed and constructed to support standard interfaces such as ATM, conventional National Technical Standards Council (“NTSC”) video, telephone “T” carrier services, Ethernet interconnection, and other similar commonly used interfaces, and future developments, such as high definition TV and digital TV.

See Section 1.03[3] of the ascertainment document.

27) There is a need and interest to allow parents to control viewing by children, with minimum interference with adult viewing options. There is a related need and interest that channels 3 or 4 not be used for adult programming or preview channels, because of their use for videotape, laserdisc and digital video disc players.

See Section 1.03[4] of the ascertainment document.

28) There is a need and interest in each cable system including useable emergency alert capabilities that allow the City remotely and securely to override the audio and video portion of all channels in the event of an emergency. This emergency override system should permit the City to send out local emergency alerts unique to the City and to specific portions of the City, while continuing to allow participation in regional and national emergency alert systems.

See Section 1.03[5] of the ascertainment document.

29) There is a need and interest that the services (including customer service support) offered by each cable operator be reasonably accessible to the hearing-impaired and other persons with disabilities.

See Section 1.04 of the ascertainment document.

30) There is a need and interest in having each cable system include at least the equipment and facilities typical of well-designed, modern cable systems.

See Section 1.05 of the ascertainment document.

31) There is a need and interest that each cable system include the equipment and facilities required to maximize consumer choice and ease of equipment operation.

See Section 1.05 of the ascertainment document.

32) There is a need and interest for cable systems that provide high service and facilities and equipment standards throughout the franchise term. Depending on the length of the term and construction financing considerations, “review points” during the term are needed to assess changes that may be needed because of advances in delivery technology, customer service, or programming. And one remedy for franchise violations should be a shortening of the franchise term to allow for a formal renewal/nonrenewal process to remedy performance concerns by setting updated standards.

See Sections 1.01, 1.03[6], 1.06 and 5 of the ascertainment document.

33) There is a need and interest in having all cable systems interconnected so that signals can flow back and forth across all systems, and to other communications networks inside and outside the City. All franchises should require interconnection of all cable systems and require that the systems be interconnected with other networks as necessary, including the Internet, so that PEG signals (including institutional network signals) can be effectively transmitted to and from each system seamlessly, without substantial deterioration or degradation.

See Section 1.07 of the ascertainment document.

34) There is a need and interest for cable systems in Boulder to be designed and constructed to minimize damage from catastrophic flash floods. This should include: Minimizing aerial creek crossings, deep burial or boring under creeks; floodproofing headend facilities if located in a flood hazard area; and engineering power supplies and back-up power sources to minimize the impact of flooding along creek drainages.

See Section 1.08 of the ascertainment document.

35) There is a need and interest in having cable service available throughout the community to all businesses (including non-profit organizations) and residences. Service should be provided to a location requesting service on a timely basis, without the potential customer being forced to pay to extend the system to provide service. To that end, cable operators should be required to extend their systems upon request for service to the technological limits applicable to each system, without requiring potential customers to pay for extensions.

See Section 1.09 of the ascertainment document.

SECTION 2 ACCESS CHANNEL SERVICES

36) There is a need and interest in having capacity activated or set aside on all cable systems for public, educational and government use. Specifically, there is a need and interest for six 6-MHz (or digital equivalent) PEG channels within the next two years: Two public access channels, one general educational access channel and one educational channel dedicated to the University of Colorado, and two local government access channels. PEG programmers should be able to use the capacity provided for transmission of any information, not just video; moreover, sufficient capacity should be available on the network to enable PEG users to take full advantage of advances in cable technology and system capabilities. Additional capacity should be available if needed to meet cable-related community needs and interests, upon request by the City. Unused capacity should be recoverable by cable operators.

See Section 2.01 of the ascertainment report.

37) There is a need and interest for programming by and about the national government, such as the C-SPAN national public affairs channels, and state governmental channels when they become available.

See Section 2.06 of the ascertainment report.

38) There is a need and interest in having the public, educational and government channels receivable by all customers receiving any cable TV services, without additional charges.

See Section 2 of the ascertainment report.

39) There is a need and interest to allow members of the public, educators and government representatives to produce programming and transmit that programming, at no charge by cable operators, from locations throughout the City to a central PEG programming control site or “hub,” and from there, through each operator’s headend, to customers, without any need for operator assistance.

See Section 2.02 of the ascertainment report.

40) There is a need and interest in having dedicated bi-directional connections available from and among access production facilities for public, educational and government use, with sufficient capacity in both directions to enable those managing the PEG channels to (a) receive signals intended for retransmission on the customer network from the institutional network and from remote locations; (b) select signals for retransmission; and (c) transmit and route those signals onto appropriate channels on the customer network or on the institutional network, without any need for operator assistance.

See Section 2.02 of the ascertainment document.

41) There is a need and interest in having the facilities and equipment available so that access channels can be distributed from at least two and up to four central locations, which could include the central collecting point of the institutional network or other locations specified by the City with equipment located at appropriate sites to ensure that PEG programming can be routed through the system onto the appropriate channels without cable operator assistance. For example, the government channel is now responsible for playback of its programming, and would need to be able to play back programming during any franchise term. Educational and public access programming playback are necessary as well, but whether those functions can be combined will depend on resolution of management issues which cannot be resolved now. The University of Colorado and other educational users may require more than one site, which will not be located at the Dairy Performing Arts Center, where the public access studio was built by the City, or the Boulder Public Library on the City’s downtown campus, where the governmental access studio was built by the City. Therefore, there is a need and interest in having connections for purpose of playback and monitoring for up to four PEG access centers.

See Sections 2.02 and 2.03 of the ascertainment document.

42) There is a need and interest in having adequate studio and production facilities to enable the public and educational access channels to meet user demands efficiently.

See Section 2.03 of the ascertainment document.

43) There is a need and interest in having high quality access equipment, including funding for equipment repair and replacement, and digital equipment, to enable users of the public and educational access facility to be properly trained and assisted in production, and to ensure that production equipment is readily available for remote and studio productions and post-production work. This assessment concludes that the public, educational and governmental access communities each should have one-third of PEG capital support funds (proposed to be increased to $.75/account/month) set aside for this use.

See Section 2.03 of the ascertainment document.

44) There is a need and interest for adequate studio and production facilities to enable the government access channel to accomplish City Council and City department goals efficiently.

See Section 2.03 of the ascertainment document.

45) There is a need and interest in having high quality equipment, including funding for equipment repair and replacement, and digital equipment, to enable the government access facility to accomplish City production goals including remote and studio productions and post-production work. This assessment concludes that the public, educational and governmental access communities each should have one-third of PEG capital support funds (proposed to be increased to $.75/account/month) set aside for this use.

See Section 2.03 of the ascertainment document.

46) There is a need and interest for quality control procedures to assure consistently high signal quality for all PEG channels, including distribution of Boulder Valley School District board meetings on the government channel.

See Section 2.04 of the ascertainment document.

47) There is a need and interest for all cable operators to provide carriage of all PEG channels originating in Boulder, plus national and state governmental affairs programming, on the same channels (“on channel” carriage).

See Section 2.05 of the ascertainment document.

48) There is a need and interest for stable PEG access channel assignments that do not change without approval of the City. Cable operators should pay all costs associated with approved access channel changes.

See Section 2.05 of the ascertainment document.

49) There is a need and interest for all operators to connect, directly or indirectly, to PEG access centers in a manner that assures that the access channel is delivered (whether to a customer or some other location) without substantial deterioration from the point of origin, and with all information contained in the original signal. Further, when there are multiple operators, there is a need and interest in the equipment and facilities required to deliver the signals to multiple operators simultaneously.

See Section 2.05 of the ascertainment document.

SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE IMPOSED UNILATERALLY

As indicated at the outset of this report, there are a number of requirements that can be imposed unilaterally on a cable operator, outside the franchise. These provisions are not subject to a needs and interests test. Instead, the operator is required to comply with legislatively imposed requirements in order to be legally qualified to hold the franchise. Thus, these requirements will change over time. However, there is a significant need and interest in these requirements, which will need to be reflected in the City’s cable ordinance:

A. CUSTOMER SERVICE

There is a need and interest in strong enforceable and comprehensive customer service standards, that, among other things, ensure that deficiencies in operator performance that have occurred in the past do not recur. By way of example:

50) There is a need and interest for cable operators to minimize the time of unplanned service interruptions as much as possible, minimize the impact of unavoidable service interruptions on customers, and quickly and conveniently compensate customers for significant interruptions by equitable service fee reductions.

See Section 3.01 of the ascertainment document.

51) There is a need and interest for cable operators to respond quickly and politely to customer complaints and programming requests and to minimize channel line-up changes. A periodic survey of programming interests is necessary to meet this need and interest.

See Section 3 of the ascertainment document.

52) There is a need and interest for cable operators to provide ample advance notice to customers of any channel line-up changes.

See Section 3.02 of the ascertainment document.

53) There is a need and interest in each cable system being designed to include all necessary facilities and equipment required to carry local FM channels. Cable operator agreement should be sought to carry FM programming, as both current permits and the proposed Wide Open West franchise provide.

See Section 3.03 of the ascertainment document.

54) There is a need and interest in competition, and hence a need and interest in preventing any operator from taking steps that limit vigorous competition, or to force customers to accept service on conditions that may limit competition.

See Section 3.04 of the ascertainment document.

55) There is a need and interest in having the cable operators in the City compete with one another and to prevent companies from consolidating in a way that diminishes competition. There is a need and interest for a cable TV franchise that does not diminish competitive opportunities for additional service operators to enter the market. But there is no interest in granting a franchise for the entire City without requiring an eventual build-out, because that could lead to market division rather than competition.

See Section 3.04 of the ascertainment document.

56) There is a need and interest for cable repair, installation and disconnection procedures that take place at the scheduled time, with financial compensation to customers for missed appointments.

See Section 3.05 of the ascertainment document.

57) There is a need and interest for service policies that minimize the need for customers to be at home when work is being done on equipment outside the home.

See Section 3.05 of the ascertainment document.

58) There is a need and interest to ensure that customers can disconnect from an unsatisfactory service without charge, and to ensure that when service is disconnected for nonpayment or any other reason, disconnection fees are reasonable in light of the fee charged for the service being disconnected.

See Section 3.05 of the ascertainment document.

59) There is a need and interest for cable operator customer service personnel to treat customers with courtesy and respect in all transactions, including installations and disconnections.

See Section 3.05 of the ascertainment document.

60) There is a need and interest in protecting customers against early imposition of late or administrative fees; in regulating the level of fees; and in preventing unreasonable disconnections, or disconnections without fair notice.

See Section 3.05 of the ascertainment document.

61) There is a need and interest for late fees to be limited to a percentage of the balance due, rather than to $5.00 as has been standard industry practice. This may well require a legislative change.

See Section 3.06 of the ascertainment document.

62) There is a need and interest for a high level of clarity and accuracy and for prompt correction of any operator errors in the billing process.

See Section 3.06 of the ascertainment document.

63) There is a need and interest that customer privacy be vigilantly protected.

See Section 3.07 of the ascertainment document.

64) There is a need and interest in ensuring that all aspects of customer satisfaction are regularly graded by customers, and that customer service performance can be quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated by cable operators and the City.

See Section 3.09 of the ascertainment document.

65) There is a need and interest for a full service office for each cable operator to be located within the City, where customers of each cable operator can obtain a full range of services including bill payment, resolution of customer service complaints, adding and deleting services, and picking up, exchanging or returning leased equipment, such as converters. The service office should be centrally located, have a listed telephone number, and have adequate open hours to serve the public.

See Section 3.10 of the ascertainment document.

B. PRICING/COST OF SERVICE

66) There is a need and interest in customers being protected from excessive rates and charges. Because FCC regulations limit the degree to which the City can regulate rates and charges and permit a cable operator to escape rate regulation even where there is no head-to-head competition, the best currently available way to protect customers from high rates is to assure head-to-head competition by requiring each operator eventually to build out the entirety of the City.

See Section 3.11 of the ascertainment document.

C. FRANCHISE FEES

67) There is a need and interest that all cable operators pay a fee of five percent of gross revenues as compensation for the use of public property, for administrative costs of franchise administration, and for PEG and institutional network operating expenses.

See Section 3.12 of the ascertainment document.

D. SCOPE OF FRANCHISE

68) Because the provision of different services may subject cable operators to different requirements under state, federal and local law, and because the City wishes to ensure that persons who are using the right of way to provide similar services are treated similarly, there is a need and interest in ensuring that franchises do not limit the regulatory authority of the City to impose conditions on a cable operator desiring to provide additional services without satisfying conditions that would otherwise apply. Therefore, the scope of cable TV franchises should be limited to the provision of cable TV services.

See Section 1 of the ascertainment document.

E. TRANSFERS

69) Because franchises are held in trust, and personal in nature, and because even ostensibly internal corporate reorganizations may affect the manner in which franchisees operate or can operate, there is a need and interest for franchises that ensure that no one may succeed to a cable operator’s rights, by any means, without the City’s permission.

See Section 3.12 of the ascertainment report.

F. POLICE POWER

70) There is a need and interest that rates be subject to City regulation to the extent not prohibited by law.

See Section 3.11 of the ascertainment report.

SECTION 4. FRANCHISE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

71) There is a need and interest in having cable systems constructed and improved promptly, pursuant to a rational plan that minimizes the disruption to the City and to customers. All cable operators should have plans in place that are designed to ensure compliance with local standards for construction, and that ensure that construction errors are promptly corrected.

See Section 4.01 of the ascertainment report.

72) There is a need and interest that the City have the legal tools and personnel necessary to monitor and enforce franchise and ordinance requirements. Liquidated damages, term reduction and injunctive relief all should be available in addition to franchise revocation.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

73) There is a need and interest that each cable operator be subject to the ongoing exercise of the City’s police, regulatory and other powers because the City needs the ability to respond to changing circumstances, over time.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

74) There is a need and interest in assuring that any upgrade be performed pursuant to a construction plan that is reviewed by the City for compliance with the requirements of the franchise. Because information requested by the City has not been timely provided in the past, there is a need and interest in ensuring that cable operators provide information regarding any proposed upgrade promptly and completely. There is a need and interest in having plans ensure that upgrades are completed with minimum disruption of the rights of way and cable service to customers.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

75) There is a need and interest in testing all cable systems on an ongoing basis.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

76) There is a need and interest in ensuring that cable operators adopt meticulous maintenance plans, that they follow those plans and that they periodically review and update their plans. The plans should ensure that all parts of each system are properly maintained in a way that is designed to prevent failures. There is a need and interest in ensuring that cable operators have procedures in place for complying with City requirements (including permitting requirements) for construction in and use of the rights of way. In particular, there is a need and interest in ensuring that cable operators comply with the requirements of the City with respect to joint trenching and undergrounding.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

77) There is a need and interest in ensuring that each cable operator’s employees, contractors and subcontractors are competent and well-trained and abide by the requirements of the franchise and applicable law. Adequate cable operator personnel policies should be required to ensure compliance.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

78) There is a need and interest for franchises to include provisions that ensure that cable operators will comply with franchise obligations, and which ensure that the City will bear no cost as a result of the use of the rights of way by cable operators.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

79) There is a need and interest for franchises that ensure that cable operators will use the rights of way in a manner that minimizes the risk of damage and undue interference with public and private property.

See Section 4.02 of the ascertainment report.

80) There is a need and interest for the franchise to provide for adequate financial penalties to deter operator non-compliance in areas of significant customer or City concern, including:

a)Failure to maintain required records or submit requested information

b)Failure to complete construction as scheduled

c)Failure to provide “as built” construction maps

d)Noncompliance with PEG access requirements

e)Customer service violations, including billing and late fees

f)Noncompliance with facilities and equipment standards

g)Violation of ownership transfer procedures

See Section 4.03 of the ascertainment report.

SECTION 5. RENEWAL TERM

81) There is a need and an interest in a short franchise terms, because of the pace of technological change and because PEG and institutional network requirements may need to be revisited over time. Because federal law protects a cable operator against unfair franchise denial, a shorter term is reasonable for an incumbent operator. Incumbent terms should be limited to five to seven years. There is a need and interest for all franchise terms to be shorter than the 11-19 year term rejected by voters in 1996.

See Section 5 of the ascertainment document.

SECTION 6. ASSESSMENT OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The record before the City indicates that AT&T has not substantially complied with all the material terms of the prior franchise, and with applicable law. The record also indicates that the quality of AT&T’s services (not considering the mix and quality of the cable services and other services provided over AT&T’s cable system) has not been reasonable in light of community needs. Of particular concern are the following:

1)standard $5 late fees, that can approach 50% of the balance due

2)charging for services in advance of delivery, unlike electric, gas, telephone and other regulated providers

3)severely limited credit for service outages

4)elimination of FM service that caused customer outrage to the extent that AT&T was forced to restore the service

5)history of installation problems, including missed appointments

6)history of signal quality and service outage problems

7)perception by customers that AT&T is “unresponsive,” “arrogant,” and “rude.”

CAUTION: DRAFT: This report is in draft form, and the needs and interests identified are subject to change. The City will be inviting the community and AT&T, US West, Wide Open West, and other potential cable operators to comment on the report. Similarly, conclusions with respect to past performance are based on a review of complaints received by the City. The City will provide AT&T an opportunity to explain its past performance, and based on AT&T’s response (and any additional information received from the community), conclusions may be changed.

REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this report is to identify the future cable-related needs and interests of the City, and to assess the past performance of AT&T under its prior franchise, back to the last renewal in 1982.

COMMUNITY PROFILE

The City of Boulder is a unique community in terms of its geography and economic base, and the interests and the preferences of its citizens. Boulder is located approximately 30 miles northwest of downtown Denver, in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. It is home to the University of Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and numerous research agencies and technology corporations. At the turn of the century, the City has approximately 95,000 citizens, the majority of whom have a college degree and higher than average household incomes.

Boulder has among the nation’s highest penetration rates for home computers and Internet use -- 91% of the respondents to the City’s 1999 Citizen Survey indicated that they had access to a computer at home, work or school, with 85% having access to the Internet at one or more of these locations. 80% of Boulder residents have a computer at home and over 66% have Internet access from home.

In addition, geographic factors contribute to Boulder’s unique nature and particular cable TV needs: Boulder is located at the mouth of Boulder Canyon and is listed as the number one flash flood hazard area in the state of Colorado. Boulder is located along the edge of heavily forested mountain areas and therefore is also at considerable risk for wildland “urban interface” fires along its western edge. Finally, Boulder is bordered and traversed by geographic features know locally as mesas, especially “Table Mesa,” that block television and radio signals coming from Lookout Mountain west of Denver, the main Denver area television antenna site.

Currently, seventy percent of Boulder residents (approximately 26,000 households) subscribe to cable TV service through TCI of Colorado, Inc., now a subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph Broadband (referred to hereafter as “AT&T”). References to AT&T include TCI.

CABLE TELEVISION IN BOULDER

The history of cable television in Boulder and the relationship between AT&T and the City dates back to the early 1960s. In 1964, Colorado Televents built the first cable TV system in Boulder, serving approximately twenty-five percent of the community under a non-exclusive permit. Two years later, in 1966, the system was purchased by Community Communications Company, a subsidiary of TCI. Over the next thirteen years, the system remained essentially the same: A “community antenna” system designed to serve homes in signal shadow areas which would otherwise have poor off-the-air reception of local channels.

In response to AT&T’s inactivity, in late 1979 and early 1980, the City attempted to attract competitors to build in unserved areas of Boulder. At approximately the same time, AT&T indicated that it intended to expand the Boulder system with satellite programming. In response to a ninety-day construction moratorium imposed by the City in an effort to preserve a competitive alternative, AT&T sued the City in 1980 alleging antitrust and First Amendment violations.

After rulings by the Tenth Circuit sustaining the City’s immunity from antitrust challenge under the home rule provisions of the Colorado Constitution and sustaining the City’s position under the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the City’s use of “state action immunity” as a defense and remanded the case back to the trial court for trial on the antitrust issue. Shortly thereafter, in 1982, AT&T and the City entered into a court-approved settlement agreement which provided AT&T with a fifteen-year permit in return for providing service to the entire community, and other conditions, especially conditions relating to public, educational and governmental access. In 1985, the agreement was amended to provide three individual access channels and capital funding for the government channel . In 1985, the City began programming the government channel, the University of Colorado began programming the educational channel, and AT&T began limited public access channel operation.

In 1996, the agreement with AT&T was again amended, adding new language to provide for financial support for public access from AT&T in exchange for the City’s assumption of responsibility for operating the public access channel, ultimately through a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational corporation.

In 1994, anticipating expiration of the 1982 agreement in 1997, AT&T asked the City to commence the renewal procedures established by federal law at 47 U.S.C. 546 (a)-(g). AT&T also asked the City to attempt to seek to resolve the renewal process informally, through negotiations, as permitted by federal law.

The City began the renewal/non-renewal process required by federal law in 1994. A preliminary ascertainment document was approved by the Boulder City Council on February 20, 1996. By mid-1996, the City and AT&T completed negotiation of a potential new franchise agreement. The formal process was suspended, as is permitted by federal law.

The City determined that the informal renewal proposal was outside of the quasi-judicial formal renewal process and was therefore subject to a vote of the people under Boulder City Charter 108, which requires a vote on all franchises. In November of 1996, an election was held on the agreement reached through this informal process. The result of the election was that the potential renewal agreement was defeated by a vote of 13,397 in favor to 28,063 opposed. Following the unsuccessful vote on the informal renewal proposal, AT&T stated that it wished to recommence the formal renewal proceedings, and the City concluded that it was compelled to do so. This document has been prepared as the City’s formal ascertainment of cable-related needs and interests, and its assessment of AT&T’s past performance pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 546(a).

Before the 1982 settlement expired in 1997, the City Council granted a three-year interim permit to AT&T pursuant to Boulder City Charter 115, to allow completion of the formal renewal / non-renewal process. In March of 1998, AT&T acquired TCI.

APPLICABLE LAW

The actions of the City throughout the informal and formal renewal / non-renewal process must be understood in the context of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended through 1996 (the “Cable Act”), which governs franchise renewal proceedings between cable operators and local franchising authorities. Specifically, Section 626 of the Cable Act establishes the conditions for both “informal” and “formal” renewal proceedings.

The formal renewal process under the Cable Act is a four-stage process:

First, a City must conduct a proceeding to identify future, cable-related needs and interests of the community, and to review the past performance of the cable operator(s) serving the community.

Second, once that proceeding is complete, the City may issue a request for renewal proposals (“RFRP”). Because each renewal proposal must be evaluated on its own merits, this RFRP cannot be a competitive bidding document. The Cable Act allows the City to establish requirements in an RFRP, including:

(1) “Channel capacity . . . for public, educational or government use, and channel capacity on institutional networks . . . for educational or governmental use, and . . . rules and procedures for the use of channel capacity . . . .”

(2) “Facilities and equipment.” The legislative history explains that this includes requirements for institutional networks, studios, equipment for public, educational and government use, two-way networks, and so on.

(3) The Cable Act also states that: “A franchising authority may establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator and construction schedules and other construction-related requirements. . . .” This language permits the City to establish these requirements unilaterally in a regulatory ordinance, along with various other requirements established pursuant to the City’s police and other governmental powers.

(4) The Cable Act states that a City may not, “establish requirements for video programming or other information services.”

(5) The Cable Act also states that: “Except as otherwise permitted by [the PEG access and leased access provisions of the Cable Act], a franchising authority may not require a cable operator to provide any telecommunications service or facilities, other than institutional networks as a condition of...a franchise renewal.”

Third, in the next stage of the renewal process, operators must submit a renewal proposal in response to the City’s RFRP. Under the Cable Act, “any such proposal shall contain such material as the franchising authority may require.” If an operator submits a timely and proper response, the City has four months to evaluate the proposal, and decide whether to grant renewal based on the proposal, or to preliminarily deny renewal.

Fourth, if renewal is preliminarily denied, and the operator desires it, the City must commence an administrative proceeding. In evaluating renewal under the formal process, 47 U.S.C. 546 allows consideration of only the following four criteria:

CRITERION A: Whether the cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law;

CRITERION B: Whether the quality of the operator’s service, including signal quality, response to customer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard to the mix or quality of cable services or other services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community needs;

CRITERION C: Whether the operator has the financial, legal and technical ability to provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in the operator’s proposal; and

CRITERION D: Whether the operator’s proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting such needs and interests.

Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 546, the City has conducted a rigorous ascertainment process to determine community cable related needs and interests under the terms of the Cable Act. In determining the City’s future cable needs and interests and assessing AT&T’s past performance and future capabilities, the City’s Cable TV Office gathered information from a variety of sources. Data from the following sources were complied and analyzed by staff and form the basis for the needs and interests identified in this report. All of the documents listed below comprise a significant part of the Ascertainment Record to date and are available for inspection in the City Attorney’s Office:

•Customer Satisfaction Surveys. From 1991 through 1994, BBC, an independent research firm made annual measurements of AT&T customer satisfaction levels in Boulder.

•Technical Analysis Report. In 1995, consulting engineer William Pohts was hired to perform a complete technical analysis of the current cable system.

•Telephone Survey. In April 1995, a telephone survey was conducted by the City’s research division (The Center for Policy and Program Analysis ). A “self-selecting” version of the survey was also published in all three Boulder-based newspapers.

•Citizen Sounding Board. In late 1995, a citizen sounding board was convened by City staff in the form of a series of administrative hearings, intended to provide feedback concerning the results of the telephone and printed surveys.

•Ballot Issue 201 Survey Report. In 1996, the City’s Center for Policy and Program Analysis conducted a survey of voters regarding Ballot Issue 201, the ballot issue that presented the proposed informal renewal contract with AT&T to the electorate.

•Individual Interviews. A number of individual interviews were conducted with “citizens at large,” including leaders in technology, business organizations, educators, and representatives of major arts organizations.

•Educational Access Ascertainment Document. In 1998, an Educational Channel Task Force was formed to determine the City’s educational access cable needs. This needs study was re-affirmed by the report of independent consultant Community Media Visioning Partners, and authored by Chuck Sherwood, hired in January, 2000.

•Public Access Ascertainment Document. In 1998, Community Access TV of Boulder (“CATV”), the City’s public access coordinator, conducted a survey and held public hearings to determine City’s public access cable needs. A summary of this report and the Educational Access Ascertainment Document was prepared by Bobby Carleton, Executive Director and General Manager of Channel 8 in January of 2000. This needs study was re-affirmed by the report of independent consultant Community Media Visioning Partners, and authored by Chuck Sherwood, hired in January, 2000.

•Municipal Channel 8 Needs Analysis. In early 2000, staff of Channel 8 formally studied and compiled Channel 8 needs in relation to cable TV franchise renewal/nonrenewal.

•Comparative Analysis Report. In 1998, The Buske Group, an independent public, educational and governmental access consulting firm, was hired to perform a comparative analysis of cable franchises in other communities in the United States.

•Historical Complaint Data. Beginning in 1983, the City began logging citizen complaints regarding cable television in Boulder. Data were compiled through early 2000.

•Public Meetings. Between April 1995 and June 1995, numerous public meetings were held to gather community input from all segments of the population. These meetings included special focus group meetings as well as neighborhood meetings.

•Engineering Analysis. An updated engineering analysis focusing on the City’s need for development of an institutional network was completed in March, 2000 by independent consultant Columbia Telecommunications, with consulting engineer Lee Afflerbach as the author.

This ascertainment report describes the cable-related needs and interests determined by the City as a result of the ascertainment process and summarized in the needs and interest summary, above.

1.SYSTEM FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES

CURRENT AT&T SYSTEM REBUILD

A rebuild of the Boulder AT&T (AT&T) system was begun in 1999 to accommodate new services such as Excite@Home Internet access, increased digital channel selections and other current and potential services. AT&T declined to provide detailed technical specifications for the re-build. However, through staff discussions, the City determined that the specifications of the rebuild include upgrading cable plant capacity to 750 MHz with “two-way capability” and the capacity of offering up to 120 analog and digital channels, DMX audio and broadband Internet access. The upgraded system also will be capable of providing residential telephony and will be able to carry HDTV if “lawfully” required. The system was activated for 10,000 households just prior to the release of this ascertainment in draft form.

While the City welcomes any improvements to the AT&T cable system that benefit customers, it should be noted that AT&T did not solicit input from the City concerning future cable system facility and equipment needs prior to beginning the rebuild. Early in the rebuild process, the City discussed with AT&T the potential that it would be requiring an institutional network as a result of this ascertainment. AT&T did not inquire further about possible I-net requirements, and the City was unable to articulate requirements until the completion of the ascertainment process.

SYSTEM FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES

Above all else, the cable TV system serving Boulder at the beginning of the 21st Century must be flexible and adaptive to future community needs and technology developments in general. If one thing is certain, it is that the cable system that the City needs in the Year 2000 is not the system Boulder will need in 2005 or 2010.

In addition, the system should reflect the highest current standards in its facilities and equipment design and layout in the community. In the past, Boulder cable customers have experienced numerous frustrations directly or indirectly related to the way the system was built and its operation by AT&T.

At present, television programming signals in Boulder are received and processed through a headend complex located in Denver. A fiber optic network carries the signals from the Denver headend complex to a distribution and back-up head end located in Boulder. Public, educational and government access (PEG) programming signals and 16 FM radio signals are added to the downstream signal at the Boulder headend. The combined signals then are distributed to Boulder residents from the Boulder headend through a combination of fiber optic nodes and coaxial cable. The system is split between an older 450 MHz system, with carriage capabilities as high as 550 MHz in some sections of the plant and a 750 MHz system in rebuilt areas. The FM portion of the system spectrum is primarily used for purposes other than the carriage of FM programming.

Boulder currently receives a variety of cable services, including: 55 standard analog TV channels, 21 digital channels, 5 premium channels, 3 pay-per-view channels, 16 FM channels and10 DMX audio service channels (up to seventy-four analog and seventy-four digital channels are available in areas where the in-progress system rebuild is complete).

These channel offerings are divided into the following tiers: basic service, expanded basic service, premium service, pay-per-view service, and digital service.

The AT&T cable system in the City has needed upgrading for several years. To meet the needs of Boulder residents at the beginning of the twenty century, the City should have an up to date and flexible cable system; including: (1) A rebuilt distribution system to increase capacity; (2) adequate headend design and rebuild; (3) a system that is capable of delivering advanced services; and (4) a system that is flexible and adaptable to changing technological advances and community needs. These issues will be dealt with in the following four sections.

1.01Increased Distribution System Capacity and Availability

AT&T upgraded its Boulder cable system between 1984 and 1999. During this time, increasing complaints were received related to channel capacity: Proposed and actual deletion of FM service, deletion of C-SPAN II service and inadequate programming choices. During the 1995 informal ascertainment process, significant public comment was received directly related to issues driven by insufficient channel capacity on the current system. Citizens expressed concern that channel capacity limitations could cause a repeat of AT&T’s controversial past decisions concerning C-SPAN II and FM. AT&T did not respond to these underlying capacity issues until May of 1998 when the current rebuild was proposed to allow for Excite@Home and other services. The national trend has certainly been toward increased systems capacities, and Boulder’s demographics support development of cable systems with advanced features and high capacity.

The rebuild begun in 1999 has, in rebuilt areas of the City, provided additional channels through digital compression. However, some customers have objected to this solution because of resulting increased rates and the fact that accessing many of the additional channels requires subscribing to a separate digital tier, with a converter requirement and at a significantly increased cost.

The slowness of AT&T in responding to past capacity/rebuild issues raises concerns regarding AT&T responsiveness to future capacity concerns and rebuilding needs. Based on past customer interests, it is reasonable to expect that the system currently being re-built by AT&T will have to be upgraded again in the future to continue to provide adequate service to customers. The prevalence of 836-860 MHz systems, and the fact that an 860 MHz system now is proposed for Boulder by Wide Open West, casts doubt on the wisdom of AT&T’s 750 MHz commitment, even though it may have been reasonable when it was made.

Widespread demand for broadband Internet access, discussed below, clearly requires channel capacity far beyond the existing 450 MHz system. And the specifications of the ultimate AT&T Internet offering on its rebuilt system are unknown. Concerns remain that AT&T may not allocate enough of the bandwidth to upstream signals from Internet users to meet the needs of many users.

Cable service needs to be available to all residents of the community. The City has received several complaints from potential customers in newly annexed areas that could not receive cable service. After the initial buildout, and especially in a compact city like Boulder, such concerns should not exist, at least to the extent that the technology permits the expansion. All cable systems in Boulder should be configured to facilitate extension of service into all areas annexed by the City during the franchise period.

1.02Adequate Headend Design and Rebuild

The heart of a cable system is its central distribution point, or “headend,” including both regional and local origination and distribution facilities. AT&T maintains headends in Denver and in Boulder.

In order to provide adequate service to the Boulder community, AT&T headend equipment in both Denver and Boulder and headends of other cable operators serving Boulder must include the capacity to handle future advanced cable television services and to receive and cablecast signals in substantially the form received. This includes transmitting video signals in color that are received in color and audio signals in stereo that are received in stereo as well as re-transmitting any second audio program signals, and all closed captioning signals. As indicated in a later section of this document, since services for special populations (such as closed captioning) are often carried as part of other broadcast or cablecast video signals, it is important that all channels on the cable system, including PEG access channels, be carried by the operator with all original components of the signal intact. Ultimately, cable operators must be capable of advanced television (ATV) and high definition television (HDTV) signals.

The headend also must be able to accommodate an emergency audio interrupt system able to serve exclusively the Boulder franchise area. Recent problems with access channel transmission have resulted from lack of adequate back-up power sources at the AT&T headend, resulting in a loss of locally inserted access channels whenever power is interrupted at the headend. This problem must be addressed by every cable operator to assure reliable service, especially during an emergency.

1.03System Capable of Delivering Advanced Services

The ascertainment process documents the community need for a cable system that is capable of delivering advanced services including:

(1)broadband Internet access;

(2)institutional network (I-net) capability;

(3)channel-blocking capability;

(4)an advanced emergency notification system, and

(5) high definition television and advanced television services. These services are described in more detail, below.

1.03[1] Broadband Internet Access

According to the 1999 “Boulder Citizen Survey,” the City of Boulder has among the nation’s highest penetration rates for personal computers and Internet access. 91% of the respondents to the City’s 1999 Citizen Survey indicated that they had access to a computer at home, work or school with 85% having access to the Internet at one or more of these locations. 80% of Boulder residents have a computer at home, and over 66% have Internet access from home .

Boulder is a center of high technology development and innovation. Beginning in the 1950s, Boulder became home to major governmental laboratories such as the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST), followed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Boulder is the site of the main campus of the University of Colorado, and is home to many public/private telecommunications and computing research projects. Boulder is also the site of US West Advanced Technology (US West AT), the main research unit of this eleven-state regional bell operating company. In addition, Boulder hosts advanced communications and biotechnology companies such as Amgen, SSC, IBM, Roche, Exabyte, Access Graphics -- as well as a large number of smaller technology companies.

The economic future of the community is directly related to its ability to interact through the Internet with individuals and entities all over the world. Boulder’s business community has requested that Boulder receive “universal, wide bandwidth service” to all Boulder neighborhoods, such as AT&T’s Excite@Home and @Work service. Some citizens have gone so far as to request symmetric bandwidth in “down-channel” and “up-channel” transmissions so that every recipient can be a “producer” as well as a “consumer” of information. Boulder residents also expressed a desire to have easy access to the Boulder Community Network (BCN), (a community Internet site serving numerous local governments and an array of for-profit and not-for-profit businesses and services), and open access to broadband Internet services.

In addition to individual Internet information needs, Boulder needs Internet capabilities which will foster commercial activity both within the City of Boulder and between the City and other regions of the county, country and the world. High-speed connections will allow the fast exchange of large quantities of commercial data. An “open” system is essential to avoid a tying of cable system facilities to Internet access: Cable-based Internet service needs to facilitate connections with the institutional network and Internet service providers (ISPs) beyond the Excite@Home network.

Boulder needs a system in which true two-way communications are possible for every user of the system. This includes home users who may use the system for entertainment and shopping purposes and commercial users who may use the system for marketing and selling goods and services.

In addition, the system will need to support greatly increased telecommuting by area workers so that the impacts of motor vehicle transportation can be minimized in an increasingly congested region. The reality is that: “The lack of high-speed Internet access limits what sort of work employees can do from their homes, consequently limiting both an employer’s and employee’s motivation to telecommute.”

The ascertainment process has identified the following specific facilities and equipment needs related to Internet service:

1) Bandwidth should be symmetrical or at least provide for a minimum downstream and upstream capacity of 384 Kbs.

2) Users should be guaranteed basic “throughput” levels, including the ability to monitor and audit that they are receiving the throughput speeds they bargained for.

3) “Secure multicast” service should be provided.

4) Outbound multicast service should be provided.

5) Quality of service concerns should be resolved by allowing users to reserve large bandwidth as needed and minimizing “latency” issues involved with very long transmission paths and distant data exchange or transfer points.

6) Appropriate encryption capabilities should be provided to protect privacy in an open service environment.

1.03[2] Internet Open Access

A huge amount of literature has developed around the “open access” issue in a relatively short period of time. However, the weight of the evidence appears to support a conclusion that open access is financially feasible and technologically feasible.

There is also a substantial basis for concluding that without “open access,” Internet innovation and consumer choice will be harmed, and competition in this important new cable service will be reduced. The conclusion has particularly significant consequences for a community such as Boulder, which has staked its future on the future of technology.

A harder question is whether local government action should be taken to require open access now. It can be argued that requiring open access is particularly inappropriate in Boulder, because there is a real possibility that the incumbent operator will face competition from US West, Wide Open West, and other companies that are proposing to overbuild one another. However (a) allowing closed access may simply lead all companies to pursue a “closed access” model, with its attendant harms; and (b) there is no guarantee that competition will reach most consumers quickly, or that competition will continue throughout the community. There is a substantial basis for concluding that open access should be required now – but it also is the case that reasonable people have concluded that a “wait and see” approach is reasonable.

At the very least, however, one can conclude that there should be “open access:” Even opponents of government access mandates are increasingly admitting that “open access” is a good idea. And, based on the risks to the Internet economy presented by the “closed model,” and the nature of the Boulder economy, it is also easy to conclude that there is a substantial need for, and interest in, “open access in this community. Under any circumstance, it also appears that the cable system should be designed so that the customers can receive advanced PEG services.

Ultimately, because of the risk to the Boulder economy, some form of “open access” requirement seems to be needed. Most local “open access” ordinances have simply required that an operator provide nondiscriminatory access to its cable modem platform. However, several organizations and individuals have identified key components of open access.

Time Warner and AOL recently released a “Memorandum of Understanding that identified key “open access” principles. According to AOL and Time Warner, “open access has the following characteristics:

1. The consumer has a choice among multiple ISPs. Customers are not be required to purchase service from an ISP that is affiliated with the cable operator.

2. There is no fixed limit on the number of ISPs with which the cable operator will enter into commercial arrangements to provide broadband service to customers. Instead, customers are given a broad choice among ISPs, consistent with providing a quality consumer experience and any technological limitations in providing multiple ISPs on its broadband cable systems.

3. The terms of the commercial agreements between the cable operator and ISPs wishing to provide broadband service do not discriminate on the basis of whether the ISP is affiliated. Thus, while the economic arrangements reached under which open access is provided may vary depending on a number of factors (such as the speed, marketing commitments, and nature and tier of the service desired to be offered), the cable operator may not discriminate in those economic arrangements based upon whether or not the ISP is affiliated.

4. The cable operator will operate its broadband cable systems in a manner that does not discriminate among ISP traffic based on affiliation.

5. Video streaming is allowed.

6. An ISP may connect to the cable operator’s broadband cable systems without purchasing broadband Internet backbone transport from the operator or its affiliates.

7. Consistent with technological capability, the cable operator will provide access to ISPs on a national, regional or local basis, in order to facilitate the ability of consumers to choose among ISPs of different size and scope.

8. The cable operator and the ISP should have the opportunity to have a direct relationship with the customer. Accordingly, both the cable operator and the ISP would be allowed to market and sell broadband service directly to customers.

FCC Chairman Kennard has indicated that “open access” should have the following elements (although, as noted above, he believes that “open access” requirements should grow out of the marketplace, and not be imposed by government):

“It seems to me that if we are to talk about openness, we need to talk about open protocols, open boundaries, and open pricing.

By open protocols, I mean that the interface standards that applications developers and equipment designers use are arrived at in an open, transparent process, and then made accessible to everyone – just like the IP protocol.

By open boundaries, I mean that interconnection is encouraged, and bottlenecks and content control are eliminated. The borders are porous, not closed or walled-off, and outside programming and services are allowed to enter the network and interact freely with consumers.

By open prices, I mean that prices for access to the network are determined by a competitive market, not unilaterally by a rate-setter, whether public or private. And the customer can reach the service provider of their [sic] choice without having to pay twice.”

An expert panel in King County issued a report recently, dealing with an AT&T franchise, splitting on the question of whether “open access” should be mandated. However, there was broad consensus as to the elements of “open access.”

The panel concluded that as a foundation for an pro-competitive policy:

“AT&T should not block or limit access to information at any site on the Internet, including the sites of competitors to AT&T or Excite@Home.

AT&T should not make it more difficult or more cumbersome to transmit information efficiently to or from sites that are not affiliated with AT&T or Excite@Home.

AT&T should provide fast access to local sources of information via “local peering” -- that is, direct connections between AT&T’s local cable network and local sources that avoid the congestion of unnecessarily sending information through distant regional or national facilities.

Any consumer should be able to easily connect to any Internet services or online content of his or her choice without viewing any AT&T or Excite@Home sponsored information by “clicking” on an “icon” – that is, the symbol which represents the consumer’s preferred service – which appears on his or her computer desktop.”

More particularly, “in order to achieve non-discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic and provide open, unbiased and usable choice of, and access to and/or from any Internet-based resources and/or services,” the panel concluded that AT&T must now and for the life of the franchise agreement both:

“Sustain high-quality and minimal-packet-loss, minimal-latency, high-speed, high-performance, and extremely reliable local peering and traffic exchange facilities as specified below; and

Establish and sustain an effective mechanism to locally peer and exchange traffic locally, without settlements, with all qualified institutions and/or qualified Internet Service Providers (ISP's) and/or qualified Online Service Providers (OSP’s) and/or other qualified Internet content or service providers who seek and are willing to meet, peer and exchange traffic locally with AT&T in and via the agreed-upon local exchange point or points (to which the institutions/providers furnish their own connectivity, and at which the institutions/providers provide their own compatible interface).”

Further, the panel concluded, among other things that:

“Internet packets and/or intranet or Internet traffic to and/or from subscribers to non-AT&T partners must be provided with performance and priority within and into and out of the local AT&T Internet-over-cable system which is no worse than equivalent to that provided throughout the local AT&T system to AT&T and/or AT&T partners.

At least one local High Performance Peering and Local Exchange Point (HPPLEP) must be established and sustained at a logical regional network exchange point where Internet service provides and others normally exchange traffic for a section of the country, to enable institutions, ISP's, OSP's, employers, schools and others who wish to provide content or other services to consumers within the AT&T cable system and who are willing and qualified to peer and exchange traffic with AT&T locally, to be able to do so with the minimal packet loss or flow delays, and with packet loss and packet delay no greater than AT&T provides to itself or to its partners for similar types of traffic. An attachment point for this facility for AT&T and for those wishing to peer with AT&T must be at the major regional carrier-hotel location at which the largest number of local ISP's and institutional commodity Internet backbone connections exist.

AT&T must implement and sustain a connection between its Internet-over-cable facilities and the High Performance Peering and Local Exchange Point (HPPLEP) with a 150 million bit per second link by January 1, 2000 and with an OC-48 link by July 1, 2000.....AT&T must take whatever steps are necessary so that the link performs at a level consistent with the total performance of the AT&T Internet-over-cable system.

AT&T must prevent router and link configurations from becoming bottlenecks.

AT&T and its partners and vendors must upon a subscriber’s request enable subscribers to have up to four DHCP-assigned Internet addresses.

AT&T may not implement any Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”) on non-AT&T or AT&T partner traffic, or on individual subscribers that varies from the least-restrictive AUP policy that applies to AT&T or AT&T’s partners or vendors, and in no case shall AT&T apply any restrictions based on content or supplier except as required by law or as a temporary response to ongoing Denial of Service attacks or similar events that seriously compromise network operations. AT&T may not implement any content filtering on non-AT&T or non-AT&T partner or on subscriber traffic except as required by law or as a temporary response to ongoing Denial of Service attacks or similar events which seriously compromise network operations.”

Ken Klingenstein of the University of Colorado raised similar issues in the course of the needs assessment process.

Based on a review of the above, this needs assessment concludes that “open access” should include the following elements. The elements are broader than some of the elements specified above, in order to provide operators with some flexibility in implementing open access. But, for example, if a local “peering point” is not established, an operator would be expected to provide the functionality that might be provided through a “peering point.”

1. If the cable operator provides a cable modem platform for commercial use:

a. Subscribers should have a choice of affiliated and unaffiliated ISPs.

b. Unaffiliated ISP interconnection to the cable modem platform should be provided on terms and conditions that do not discriminate in favor of an affiliated ISP, and that do not tie access to the purchase of Internet backbone transport service from a cable operator or its affiliate. If the operator chooses to do so, it could provide different levels of access to the cable modem platform, so long as each level is provided on non-discriminatory terms and conditions; access to any level should not be conditioned on granting an ownership interest in the ISP to the cable operator.

c. The cable modem platform may be used for voice, video or data and to this end should be designed so that packet loss and latency issues are minimized. Any restrictions based on the nature of the use should be applied uniformly, in a manner consistent with necessary and neutral network management.

2. Whether or not the cable operator provides a cable modem platform for commercial use:

a. It should provide a cable modem platform, or local access to the cable modem platform for PEG use, and sufficient upstream and downstream capacity (whether on a dedicated or shared basis) so that advanced PEG cable services can be delivered at speeds and with a quality comparable to the speed and quality with which commercial cable services are provided via cable modem platforms.

b. The upstream capacity of the network should be available so that subscribers can act as sources of non-commercial information, subject to reasonable limitations consistent with necessary and neutral network management. The system should be designed so that upstream capacity can be expanded over time to meet customer demand.

1.03[3] Institutional Network (I-net) Capability

THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS APPEARING HERE ARE A COMBINATION OF THE PREVIOUS RSV DRAFT AND KEY POINTS FROM LEE AFFLERBACH’S DRAFT REPORT VERSION 2.1

INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK DEFINITION

An institutional network is a communications network primarily designed to serve non-residential users. The cable franchising process allows local franchising authorities to require institutional networks (or “I-nets”) as part of cable franchise agreements and to provide capacity on these networks for public, educational and government use.

THE NEED FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK IN BOULDER

There is a need for an extensive community Institutional Network in Boulder. One of the major pieces of evidence for this is the City’s significant investment to date in its own 31 mile “internal” fiber optic system that is designed to support a variety of services, including cable TV I-net functions. The need for a much broader and more inclusive cable I-net is further supported by a recent study conducted by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation on behalf of the City .

Local governments, schools and public gathering places are important assets in any community; legislation concerning local affairs is debated at city hall, counties handle vital property tax services, schools educate our children, concert halls and performing arts facilities keep our cultural traditions alive and growing. These public “institutions” have their own specific needs in terms of cable TV system. The clearest need is that these locations be connected with one another to promote public access to information and programs produced by these institutions.

The City does not yet have a cable TV institutional network. The municipal government has begun developing a limited an internal fiber optic network, primarily for ATM-based data transmission, and the scientific community is now linking major computing sites together via the BRAN network (see below). Selected pieces of these networks could potentially connect to or complement a community-wide cable TV I-net.

The City is home to numerous “PEG institutions” with I-net connection needs. These include municipal and county government offices and facilities, several private educational institutions, private and public performing and visual arts facilities, community meeting facilities, as well as approximately 34 public schools buildings in the Boulder Valley School District, the main campus of University of Colorado, a satellite campus of Front Range Community College, and the Naropa Institute. In addition, Boulder is home to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal and state governmental agencies. Some sites, including the new NOAA building, have meeting spaces and video origination capabilities that make them important potential I-net sites.

The linking of the City of Boulder, the University of Colorado, The National Center for Atmospheric Research, The National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration through the BRAN (Boulder Research and Administrative Network) project offers a unique opportunity to easily include these institutions in the institutional network.

An institutional network would serve to connect all of Boulder’s PEG facilities and community venues and governmental sites to the headend and to each other for video and other forms of communication. These upgraded transmission capabilities should include digital and direct optical connections and should be adaptable and expandable. Furthermore, the system should be as transparent as possible in that once a user has access to a transmission path, the user should not require the operator’s cooperation to bring in or transmit a particular application.

Boulder PEG users need an institutional network that is available in all areas of the community to a changing configuration of users. The network should be able to both transmit and receive video and data information at any participating location. Specifically, Boulder PEG users need advanced I-net services with transmission capacity sufficient to allow broadband, configurable bandwidth, bi-directional access for all schools, government buildings, emergency services, libraries, public recreation centers, social service agencies, cultural and performance venues, community meeting rooms, and government research and development sites. In other words, Boulder needs flexible institutional network that can be adaptable enough to accommodate the changing locations and needs of users. Schedule 3 to this document lists specific I-net connections requested by public / educational access channel representatives.

Among many community benefits, this kind of institutional network would make it possible for PEG programmers to present live programming of the widest community interest. For example, if PEG programmers can transmit video from venues such as the Boulder Theater, Macky Auditorium, Grusin Music Hall, and the three high schools in Boulder, major cultural events can be televised live. Similarly, a live feed from the County Courthouse would allow “real time” coverage of election results and other County government business. The City’s Library/Arts Director has stressed the importance of having all cultural facilities included in the I-net. A list of current important cultural venues is attached as Schedule one.

Additional applications of such a network are manifold: town meetings, community polling, interactive seminars, and community events could all be televised live. Some cities have applied institutional network technology to create “virtual city halls”. Boulder citizens have historically been very involved with their local governments, and there is an increasing need to provide information and channels of communication between citizens and local and regional governments. Therefore, Boulder needs an institutional network that will allow its citizens, through PEG programming providers, to access government meetings, services and information in order to foster the maximum public understanding of and involvement in the public process.

Likewise, I-net communications are important for internal government operations. For example, a network of high capacity connections could allow for remote TV monitoring of traffic patterns and conditions, or, if all fire stations were linked together, emergency personnel could be trained without physically removing them from their duty stations or interfering with their ability to respond to any emergency which might occur during training. Similarly, Boulder’s chief of police believes that police operations would benefit from having all police annexes and the main police station connected for the exchange of video and text information.

The Boulder public library has specific I-net needs. Ultimately, the library desires that its branches act as an information exchange centers for the community. In order to do so, however, the library requires a cable system which will help this become a reality. A cable system with I-net capability would allow the City to provide such services internally, thereby maximizing municipal resources. Consultant Lee Afflerbach concludes that:

“The telecommunications requirements for the library are unique relative to other services on the fiber network. The three branch libraries each need a dedicated, direct link to the Central Library hub location. Recently, library data communications needs have risen sharply, and as a result, a dedicated high capacity backbone between the Central Library and branch libraries presents the most cost-effective solution. This will allow traffic to flow directly to the branch facilities and permit the installation of lower cost interface equipment for connecting the libraries rather than installing a more costly and unnecessarily sophisticated ATM technology used in the network backbone. In addition to the need for the data connectivity, there is considerable interest in providing video connectivity between library facilities. Desired applications include the use of library rooms as shared city-wide meeting rooms for two-way video conferencing purposes. For example, a reading of children’s stories might take place at one of the library facilities can be viewed remotely at all other library facilities using the network. This same video link could also provide local cable television access programming. Since the City’s access facility is located at the Main Library, the addition of links to the branch libraries would allow for increased localized programming to various portions of the City.”

Afflerbach’s conclusions concerning municipal uses are similar:

In Boulder, a modern, state-of-the-art, city-owned network has been planned and is already under construction. This municipal network mainly supports the interconnection of the City’s data processing system among the dispersed City office locations. The major City sites have already been activated but plans need the eventual connection of up to 100 other locations. The City’s telecommunications service offerings are planned to expand beyond the present traditional data network services and include interactive two-way video and telephone applications. Other traditional communications services such traffic signaling, utility telemetry, and public building environmental control systems are logical candidate applications for the citywide network. However, a larger system will have to be in place to meet these future needs.

A list of municipal sites that should be included in an I-net is attached as Schedule 2 to this report.

In order to be useful to a PEG and governmental users, the institutional network must be available throughout the community to adapt to a changing variety of meeting and performance venues and changes and reconfigurations of PEG and institutional user facilities. The need to adapt to changing locations of users and events suggests that the institutional network should also allow for flexible program origination via the Internet and other mobile sources such as wireless data and video devices. For example, I-net fiber optic lines should extend throughout the community and terminate in “nodes” which could be connected by wireless transmitters/receivers to meetings, training activities, performances or other events taking place anywhere within the range of a particular “node.” Another example of the need for flexible and mobile connections to the I-net is the stated need of the Police Department to initiate two-way cable-based communication from the scene of an emergency through a wireless link.

The report by the City’s engineering consultant articulates the need for two kinds of institutional network infrastructure: First, a “ring” architecture to allow a cable TV institutional network to reach sites already on the City’s main fiber network, and second: a “star” architecture that will allow direct and economical connection of potential PEG origination sites currently not connected to the City’s network.

Independent studies by the Public and Educational Access channel groups confirm the need for connectivity between and among governmental buildings, school buildings and major community performance and meeting venues that can best be met with an institutional network of connections within the cable system.

DESCRIPTION OF BOULDER I-NET

Exhibit A (attached) is the Wide Open West proposal to build most of the institutional network proposed in this ascertainment report. Exhibit B (attached) is a map representing current and proposed City telecommunications and institutional network facilities. All sites identified in green will be linked by two fiber optic strands to a common City-operated hub site that will provide PEG users with access to the institutional network. These sites include all I-net connections appearing in Schedules one through three.

FUNDING FOR PEG USE OF BOULDER I-NET

The public and educational channel groups recognized the need to fund PEG utilization of the I-net. The needs studies recommend that each operator contribute $0.15/month/subscriber toward I-net costs. Although these costs are difficult to estimate, the imminent potential completion of Exhibit A, the Wide Open West institutional network proposal, makes this a critical need and interest.

I-NET CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION IN A MULTI-PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT

The reality of multiple cable TV permit holders in Boulder raises several issues pertinent to the design, construction, and operation of an institutional network that have not been addressed before.

First, it is clear that, however many providers are present, there should be only one I-net. Attempting to construct multiple I-nets is clearly inefficient from a financial and a functional perspective. Interconnecting pieces of I-net built by different competitors is equally undesirable. And appointing the City as the owner and operator and ultimately the responsible party for the institutional network seems essential, either directly or through a series of contracts. Therefore, the goal must be one, integrated institutional network supported equally by all providers. The methods of operator support could include:

1) construction of the network fiber optic and coax lines;

2) provision of termination equipment; or

3) contributions toward ongoing capital replacement and expansion costs of the network.

But this goal may not be fully realized in a formal process, since other ways of achieving the same outcome must be permitted.

Thus, there is a need and interest to link City facilities and other public buildings (including schools, libraries, public safety facilities, performance venues, and others, detailed on schedules one through three) via a reliable and secure institutional network for a variety of PEG two-way video, voice and high-speed data communications. The institutional network should be a broadband data and video network providing scalable communications support to individual sites at data rates ranging from 10 to 1000 Mbps.

Each cable operator must be required either to participate in a single city institutional network, as described in Exhibits A and B, or to provide all facilities and equipment necessary to link City facilities and other public buildings (including schools, libraries, public safety facilities, performance venues, and others, detailed on schedules one through three) via a reliable and secure institutional network.

There is a need and interest that the network be constructed, operated and maintained to ensure that there is a clearly defined standard for quality and availability. Responsibilities for maintenance and operation need to be clearly defined, particularly if fiber from multiple operators will need to be coordinated. The City must be able to determine the source of any network problems, and to have those problems corrected promptly, given the nature of the services the network is being used to provide.

1.03[4] Channel Blocking Capability

The theme of individual choice appears throughout the information and opinions gathered by the City as part of this ascertainment process. This is particularly evident in the area of parental choice over programming viewed by children.

The Boulder community has repeatedly advocated for adequate signal blocking capabilities. In particular, Boulder residents have expressed an interest in preventing cable operators from selling or delivering inappropriate material to minors. There are ongoing debates at the federal level on this issue, and the law seems to be changing. Likewise, parents have expressed a need to control the content of programming offered to their children. There are a number of facilities and equipment systems that allow customers to block signal transmission. However, in some cases, parental control devices block only the video and not the audio portion of a signal. Incomplete blockage is ineffective. It is also important for parents to be able to control the manner in which pay-per-view programming is ordered. Therefore, Boulder needs cable systems that let parents lock out both the audio and video on any channel they consider to contain inappropriate programming, including preview channels. Furthermore, any system for ordering movies should, through lock-out or PIN code functions, reasonably prevent children from ordering programming without parental consent.

Boulder cable customers have expressed particular concern about AT&T’s use of Channel 3 to offer previews and samples of other AT&T channels -- including sexual programming. The City has received several complaints from customers concerning unwanted viewing of sexual programming while setting the TV to Channel 3 for VCR use by or with children.

1.03[5]Emergency Notification System

Because of Boulder’s unique geographic location, the community has substantial and unique emergency notification needs. Boulder Creek travels from Boulder Canyon through the heart of the City and is the largest drainage way in the community. Boulder Canyon is comparable to Big Thompson Canyon, and: “As a result of the [1975] Big Thompson Flood, the City of Boulder is considered to be one of the greatest flood risks in the state for loss of life and property damage, given the city’s highly developed character and immediate proximity to Boulder Canyon.” In addition, Boulder sits on the boundary line between forested mountain areas and plains grasslands, putting the community at risk for wildland “urban interface” fires.

Because of these unique conditions, it is important that Boulder officials be able to send emergency announcements unique to Boulder, by means separate from communications systems serving Denver and surrounding cities -- communities that are not subject to the same fire and flood hazards present in Boulder. Boulder flood management and emergency response officials believe that there is a need for improved warning systems: “Increased ability to notify citizens through modern telecommunications systems, such as cable television, telephone messaging alerts, Internet and e-mail announcements, would enhance the city’s opportunities to disseminate emergency messages in the most timely and critical fashion.”

Boulder also has a unique emergency notification resource in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has its new headquarters in Boulder. Connecting NOAA data and forecasting centers to City emergency operations locations could significantly improve information available to emergency planners and assist in accurately notifying the public concerning weather emergencies. Such inter-agency connections could be accomplished through the institutional network discussed in Section 1.03[3] above.

Boulder needs an emergency alert system that can be directly activated by local officials that allows those officials to override all video and audio channels -- including local access (PEG) channels. AT&T’s current alert system cannot override access channels produced in Boulder, as is required by the current permit.

The system should be capable of allowing local authorized officials to send prerecorded messages and live voice messages over all cable channels and should permit authorized officials to replace video on all channels with a text message. It should also allow authorized officials to transmit emergency text and video messages in several languages. The system will need to be designed so that authorized officials can activate the emergency alert system using a touch tone phone from the City public safety building or from remote locations . It must include security features to prevent activation of the system by unauthorized persons. The override system should be designed so that, during an emergency, cable system operators do not need to take any action before local officials can activate and use the system. Also, the system should be capable of triggering pre-recorded text-based messages on cable TV to direct viewers to take predetermined emergency response actions.

As recently as 1999, tests of the emergency alert system by the City indicated that AT&T was unable to interrupt local access channels, including the government channel, for emergency announcements. Similarly, in early 2000, the lack of back-up power systems at the headend disrupted transmission of local PEG channels and would have made it impossible to use these channels for emergency alert messages.

Because it is likely that an emergency, such as flooding or fires, will affect specific areas of the community and not others, it would be preferable to have an emergency alert system that could “target” specific regions of Boulder.

While the system should be capable of activation in Boulder separately from other operator alert systems, the system must be configured to allow participation in the national emergency broadcast system and must allow for alerts related to regional emergencies.

1.03[6]Future Developments in Technology

The old adage “the only constant is change” is certainly true in the area of communications technology. Nobody can say what cable TV technology will look like 5 to 10 years from now, except that it will be very different from what it is today. That is equally true of the structure of local, state and federal regulation of cable TV and other communications media. Boulder residents have expressed strong interest in staying abreast of future advances in cable technology, such as high definition television (HDTV) or advanced television (ATV) signals, when available, and are interested in promoting the availability of cable-based telephony (telephone service). The need that emerges from these observations is the one that began this report: The City needs robust systems that will stand the test of time without expensive upgrades.

1.04 Services to Special Populations

Local franchising authorities have a particular obligation to help citizens with special needs gain and retain access to communications services. Boulder is a community with a long history of supporting diversity and access by diverse populations to a variety of opportunities and services including telecommunications and cable TV.

There is strong interest in the community concerning access to information by the hearing impaired. The Radio Reading Service of the Rockies is a popular community service for the hearing impaired. The Radio Reading Service of the Rockies has requested assistance in carrying its specialized audio programming on Boulder’s cable TV systems. Currently the Radio Reading Service of the Rockies signal is carried on the second audio program channel of KRMA TV Channel 6, and is consequently subject to numerous reception problems in the Boulder area due to the proximity of mesas that block the signal. Radio Reading Service of the Rockies Director David Dawson feels that regular carriage of the Nsignal on cable TV systems in Boulder would constitute a tremendous advantage for the many visually impaired residents of Boulder.

In addition, Boulder residents have spoken of the needs of a variety of other special populations. For example, closed-captioning should be available for the hearing impaired. In addition, cable TV equipment needs to include voice recognition features that allow customers to navigate on-screen menus and other options without use of their hands and to facilitate menu use by the visually impaired.

Services for special populations (such as closed-captioning) are often carried as part of other broadcast or cablecast video signals. For this reason, it is important that all channels on the cable system, including PEG access channels, be carried by the operator with all original components of the signal intact.

1.05 Customer-Friendly Equipment

Cable television technology and equipment is useless if it is so complicated as to stymie or frustrate the typical cable customer. Generally accepted business principles include customer friendly equipment and overall “reliability” of the product, with reliability being the most important factor in a customer’s determination of acceptable service.

Boulder needs a system that is responsive to local needs and conditions and that is customer-friendly. Boulder cable customers have often complained that converter boxes are unfriendly, costly and overly complicated. Customers have frequently cited problems with converter box equipment failure, difficulty in using converter boxes with customer equipment, converter box charges, billing errors, and misleading advertising with regard to the need for a converter box.

While converter boxes may be unavoidable for the reception of pay-per-view and digital programming, Boulder customers have complained that they should not be necessary for simple functions such as allowing or dis-allowing reception of premium services into the home.

Requiring customers to rent or buy converters creates problems. Unless a converter includes “bypass circuitry,” or the customer rents two converters instead of one, it may be difficult to tape one channel using a VCR while watching another on the television, as is now routine. Using a converter may effectively disable features on the new television sets, such as “picture in picture” features.

Boulder residents have expressed interest in having a cable system with standardized cable equipment that is compatible with customer home electronic equipment and that minimizes the need for converter boxes which will disable consumer customer use options such as “picture-in-picture” and taping one channel while watching another. Boulder residents have expressed a need for a system which will allow customers with cable-ready television sets to receive all programming services -- other than digital or pay-per-view services -- without a converter. In particular, customers have objected to the inconvenience and added cost of requiring converters for every TV in the house (as opposed to one “master converter” located where the cable signal enters the home.

1.06Competitive and Adaptable System

A concern repeatedly voiced in the ascertainment process was that any future agreement with AT&T should be structured so as to keep the agreement up to date and competitive with current cable technology and service offerings. In addition, the community needs assessment showed strong citizen concern that Boulder’s cable system remain adaptable to future technological developments such as high definition television (HDTV) and advanced television (ATV) and broadband Internet service.

Boulder needs a cable system that provides the highest service and facilities and equipment standards throughout the franchise term. Depending on the length of the permit agreement, “review points” during the franchise term are needed to assess changes in the permit that may be needed because of advances in delivery technology, customer service, or programming.

1.07 System Interconnection

Interconnection with adjacent cable service areas is important to providing information of public interest on a region-wide basis. The ability to interconnect with other metropolitan Denver communities and adjacent service areas greatly enhances the ability of Boulder public, educational and governmental access groups to reach constituencies outside the franchise area with community programming of interest and importance to the Boulder Valley and to the Denver metropolitan area.

It is particularly important that unincorporated areas adjacent to Boulder but not formally part of the franchise area receive comparable service. Although not annexed to the City, several thousand customers contiguous to Boulder are, in fact, part of Boulder’s political and economic life and are included in its comprehensive planning area. Towards this end it is important that all PEG channels originating within the franchise area be interconnected and carried “on-channel” in unincorporated areas adjacent to the franchise area.

In addition, system interconnection is essential to district-wide distribution of Boulder Valley School District meetings. Currently there are frequent problems with BVSD distribution into AT&T service areas formerly owned by Jones Intercable.

1.08 Floodproofing Boulder’s Cable System

Due to the location and ground level position of the Boulder AT&T hub/stand-by headend, there is little doubt that a major flood could put the AT&T cable television system in Boulder in jeopardy. Boulder’s unique geographical position, at the mouth of a major river drainage system, places it in great danger of a catastrophic flood event. Thus, Boulder needs cable systems specifically designed to minimize the impact of flash floods through the core of the City. This should include: flood-proofing Boulder headend buildings, minimizing aerial creek crossings, deep burial or boring under creeks, building redundant routes when creek crossings are unavoidable, and engineering power supplies and back-up power sources to minimize the impact of flooding along creek drainages in Boulder.

1.09 Extension of Service / Availability of Service

There is a need and interest in having cable service available throughout the community to businesses (including non-profit organizations) and to residences. Service should be provided to any location requesting service on a timely basis, without the potential customer being forced to pay to extend the system to provide service. To that end, incumbent operators should be required to extend their systems upon request for service, without requiring potential customers to pay for that extension. New providers should be required to follow a buildout schedule to phase in the same requirement. Free drops and services should be provided to schools, libraries and public buildings.

2.ACCESS CHANNEL SERVICES

Public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access channels are a core service of cable TV systems in most communities. Established by the 1972 FCC Report and Order that laid much of the groundwork for future regulation of cable TV, PEG access channels are a means of helping local communities form and retain a sense of identity in a television environment that is rapidly becoming dominated by national and international programming interests. PEG channels also add value to the cable system for the system operator by providing a service unique to cable and largely absent from broadcast or satellite distribution services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and preceding legislation in 1992 and 1984 all affirm the authority of local franchising authorities to require PEG channels and to support PEG channel operation from franchise fees and access fees. Franchising authorities also have broad power to establish PEG requirements in the franchising process.

In simple terms, PEG access channels deliver programming produced by community residents and governmental, and educational entities. The total number of PEG access channels provided on a cable system depends upon the programming needs of the community and local institutions. A public access channel may be controlled by a local nonprofit organization organized for that purpose, by a multi-purpose community-based organization, or by the cable operator. It typically carries programming produced or provided by community members and covers a wide range of subject matters. Public access channels are first amendment speakers and are traditionally structured to allow for the widest lawful expression of views and opinions. An educational access channel is typically run and controlled by an educational institution, including public school districts and institutions of higher education. It may carry programming produced by the educational institution and by other related providers, including school events programs about the institutions and actual delivery of course material. A government access channel is typically run and controlled by a municipal or county government (national governmental programming is currently brought to cable TV by the C-SPAN channels). Program offerings on government access channels may include coverage of city council meetings and municipal events, interview programs, community bulletin boards, and programming about municipal services and issues. At the national level, Congress and the executive and judicial branches of the federal government are covered. At this time, there is no analogous state-level programming in Colorado.

PEG channels are specifically designed to be programmed by the general public, educational institutions, and government offices and agencies. PEG services enhance the ability of community residents and institutions to communicate with each other and the ability of educational institutions, municipal governments, and other public institutions to deliver services to community residents. PEG services include PEG access channels, PEG production facilities and equipment, connectivity between PEG institutions, and connectivity to PEG production sites, as well as training and other services.

Boulder has had an active PEG system since the mid-1980s. Boulder’s public access channel was operated by AT&T from 1985 until 1994 and is now operated by an independent non-profit corporation. The educational channel, although open to all educational institutions, has been programmed almost elusively by the University of Colorado since 1986. Boulder’s government channel (Municipal Channel 8) has been programmed by the City of Boulder since 1985. The following description gives more detail about each channel:

•Public Access Channel 54. Channel 54 is operated by Community Access TV (“CATV”), a non-profit organization designated as the public and educational access television organization for the City. Programming content is primarily provided by Boulder residents and produced at CATV’s facility. Other programming is developed by CATV or is provided by educational institutions. The CATV facility is located at the Dairy Center for the Arts and contains a medium-sized studio capable of live or taped production, three editing stations and administrative offices. Field equipment includes four camcorder systems and support equipment. CATV employs three full-time and two part-time employees. The facility is open seven days a week and 75 hours per week. The channel provides programming 24 hours per day. The primary source of public access funding is provided by the City of Boulder in the form of 40% of the current 5% franchise fee (i.e. 2% of gross revenues) passed through to CATV from the City general fund.

•Educational Access Channel 55. Governed by CATV, Channel 55 is open to all educational institutions in the franchise area. However, Channel 55 is currently operated and almost exclusively programmed by the University of Colorado as part of its Information Technology Services Department. Programming on Channel 55 is developed by University departments, in particular the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition the University has frequently programmed the channel with “pass-through” programming from international news services such as SCOLA and The History Channel. The University has television studios and equipment, and a remote television production truck is available if needed.

•Government Access Channel 8. Channel 8 is operated by the City of Boulder as its official television channel. Programming includes live and repeat telecasts of City Council meetings, Boulder Valley School Board meetings, emergency and disaster management information, news programming and features about various City departments, services and issues, local election information and coverage, and other informative municipal programming. Channel 8 is programmed 24 hrs/day and operates from production facilities located in the downtown Library and Municipal Building, including: A main production and post production facility, a “satellite” production room adjacent to Council chambers, and remote production capabilities in the main library auditorium. Channel 8 also provides “not-for-broadcast” video documentation and audio/visual support services to City departments. Channel 8 employs 5 full time staff members and is funded through the City’s general fund. Under the current interim franchise agreement with AT&T, Channel 8 receives additional capital equipment replacement funding at the rate of $.75/month/account.

•National and state governmental programming. In addition to local governmental programming, cable customers currently have access to national governmental programming provided through C-SPAN I and II. In the future, customers may also have access to similar state-level government programming.

PEG facilities and equipment include studios, cameras, recorders, editors, character generators, computers, remote production and microwave relay equipment and the variety of other equipment normally required for production of television programming. PEG facilities also include receivers, modulators, playback machines, and transmitters to distribute programming and other services over the cable system. In addition, PEG facilities and equipment include viewing, recording, and computing equipment and mobile units to facilitate the production and use of PEG programming in schools, government buildings, and other PEG facilities. Finally, services for PEG institutions include “downstream” and “upstream” transmission lines, internal wiring, and other communications services and customer equipment for school, government, and other PEG customers.

Institutional network services for PEG providers are networks and equipment that link PEG facilities together and to the cable system for communications among PEG facilities and with cable customers. These facilities can provide closed circuit channels for live coverage of meetings or events, video arraignments, distance learning, training services, and a myriad of other purposes. They also can carry video programming from PEG production sites to the headend and provide data services between and among government and other PEG offices and facilities. Other PEG services include staff and facilities and equipment support for PEG activities. Some cable operators staff, equip, and run public access facilities, providing training and other support services. But this kind of support cannot be mandated through the formal process. Finally, PEG services may include financial support for PEG activities in the form of direct payments to school, government, and other PEG users, including grants and fees dedicated to PEG purposes such as training, production management, equipment purchases, and basic operations.

Community residents have expressed strong support for retaining and strengthening PEG services. Furthermore, the City’s needs for PEG services have significantly increased since AT&T’s 1982 franchise grant. Since TCI acquired the Boulder cable system in 1966, Boulder has grown from a town with a population of approximately 56,000 residents to a city of 95,000 residents in 1999. The public, educational, and government access channels have each submitted detailed needs statements as part of the formal renewal non-renewal ascertainment process.

The City has identified five key areas of PEG needs: (1) increased PEG channel capacity; (2) interconnectivity; (3) capital support from the cable operator for PEG access and equipment and facilities, 4) improved signal quality control procedures by AT&T, and 5) stable PEG channel assignments with any change in access channel assignments needing City approval. Each area is addressed separately below.

2.01Increased PEG Channel Capacity

Steadily increasing use of Boulder’s current access channels indicates that more channels will be needed to meet community needs. Boulder residents have expressed a clear need for increased PEG channel capacity. The three access channel programmers have documented the need for bandwidth of at least 24 MHz (4 video channels) on the current Boulder system. Capacity demands anticipated by PEG programmers indicate the need for a total of at least six 6 MHz access channels within 5 years -- double the current capacity. The Public and Educational Access Channel needs report calls for 10% of system capacity to be devoted to PEG channels. (This would equal about 6 channels under the current 54+ channel system). All of these channels should be subject to use by cable operators to the extent not used by the Boulder community.

Under older standards of need, additional PEG channels were made available once non-repeated programming equaled 25% of an existing channel. But the recent AT&T Denver franchise has a better process for drawing down additional PEG channels. It places the power in the hands of the city government, subject to abandonment by nonuse. This language should be considered for Boulder as well.

PEG channel capacity needs to be defined as bandwidth, not just as “channels,” in order to allow the PEG community, as well as cable operators, to provide increased levels of service through technological developments such as digital transmission and to protect the PEG community from being forced to accept poor quality compressed channels mandated by an operator.

This PEG bandwidth needs to be available without restriction for any “non-commercial” use by the PEG channels, including but not limited to: Transmission of video programming, “off line”exchange of video programming, and exchange of data information between production sites. Moreover, PEG access channels should be provided, to the extent possible, in both digital and analog form so that PEG channels are not relegated to second tier status in a mixed digital and analog environment. In addition, the number of PEG access channels should allow for programming to specialized audiences such as persons with disabilities and for training of governmental or school employees.

Residents of contiguous AT&T systems operated in areas of unincorporated Boulder County adjacent to the City were concerned that channel capacity on these systems is insufficient to allow carriage of all of Boulder’s PEG channels. Although Boulder is likely to annex these areas, which are within its comprehensive plan boundaries, its jurisdiction is uncertain.

There needs to be enough capacity on cable systems to allow for government programming in addition to the local governmental channels. The public outcry accompanying AT&T’s decision to eliminate C-SPAN II, complaints filed with the City cable office and citizen testimony before City Council and staff correspondence with AT&T on the issue (all of which collectively resulted in AT&T reversing its decision and restoring C-SPAN II) indicate the specific need in the Boulder community for complete national governmental affairs programming. All future franchises should contain this requirement.

2.02Connectivity / Interconnection

Local access cable TV channels are significantly less valuable to the community if they must operate in isolation from each other and from venues in the community where events are likely to take place.

Currently, each of the three PEG channels occupies a separate production site several miles from the other facilities. Connecting the facilities electronically makes more sense economically than trying to locate all the access channels together in one new location. Also, there are a number of performance and event venues in Boulder that need to be linked with PEG production sites. These include: Several sites on the University of Colorado campus, the Boulder Theater, the Fox Theater, the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, the Diary Center for the Arts, the Boulder Public Library and all branches, and major commercial meeting and conference spaces such as those located at the Chamber of Commerce and at the Regal Harvest House ballroom. See, schedule one, attached. Therefore, Boulder residents need a cable system that offers maximum connectivity between PEG institutions. PEG connectivity should include access to and the ability to program material available on the Internet.

There is a need and interest in having dedicated bi-directional connections available from access production facilities for public, educational and governmental use, with sufficient capacity activated in both directions to enable those managing the PEG channels to (a) receive signals intended for retransmission on the customer network from the institutional network and from remote locations; (b) select signals for retransmission; and (c) transmit and route those signals onto appropriate channels on the customer network, or on the institutional network, without the assistance of the operator. The connections should include all routers, modulators, demodulators and other equipment required to provide this functionality.

An institutional network as described in Section 103[3] above would meet the connectivity needs of the PEG community by providing broadband linkages between PEG production facilities. As recommended by the City’s consultant Lee Afflerbach, PEG access sites should reside on the “star” portion of the institutional network.

2.03Capital Support

The vitality and quality of Boulder access channels depends on adequate financial support from the cable operator for capital equipment.

Historically, community access channels have been created and supported through a combination of financial support from the cable operator, tax dollars, and private support through fund-raising. The City of Boulder funds the majority of its governmental access channel costs from the City general fund, with equipment replacement support from AT&T. Community Access TV (CATV) currently receives 40% of the City’s franchise fee for operational support of public access channel 54. This is equivalent to 2% of AT&T’s gross revenues, estimated to produce $246,000 in 2000. Both the public and the governmental channels received initial capital funding from AT&T, and the governmental channel currently receives $.75/account/month for capital support.

To ensure effective and responsive PEG services, PEG institutions need ongoing support for the acquisition and operation of facilities and equipment.

Public and Educational access channel representatives have submitted data supporting a variety of operational and capital proposals, including: 67% of the franchise fee for public and educational use, a new $1 million joint public/education access channel facility and $70,000/year (current dollars) for public and educational capital equipment replacement. The group has also requested a minimum of $40,000/year to rent additional space until a new facility can be constructed. Currently, CATV receives 40% of the franchise fee ($240,000 in 1999) as operational support, in addition to use of 2,000 square feet of space, constructed by the City in 1996. The new facility and support goals are ambitious, and will require an increase in each customer’s pass through fees. This clearly will require a process to solicit customer views and careful scrutiny by the City Council, in writing the RFRP.

Municipal Channel 8's needs report documents the need for annual equipment replacement funding in the amount of $75,000. This would continue the current $75,000/year in equipment replacement funds currently received from AT&T. The Channel 8 equipment replacement schedule was developed through a careful analysis conducted jointly with the City’s Facilities and Asset Management Office.

No educational programming is done by the CATV at this time. The only educational channel programming is being produced by and at the University of Colorado. A proposal has been made to separate the management of public access and that of educational access. This is a new idea, and it will require study, as the City Council considers the report of the City Manager’s task force on CATV.

Channel 8's current studio facilities ( about 3,000 square feet) are adequate to meet the current demand for services, as presently defined by City Council. However, significant increases in Channel 8 programming could over-tax the current site. The Channel 8 facilities are comparable to the public access channel facilities at the Dairy. All PEG channels will need a substantial capital equipment replacement contribution as cable TV distribution systems become digital.

Boulder residents have expressed the need for courtesy hook-ups and no-charge cable drops and basic cable programming to all governmental buildings and PEG sites in the franchise area. This includes major City buildings such as municipal administrative buildings, senior centers and libraries, Boulder County buildings, Boulder Valley School District schools and other major school buildings, University of Colorado administrative and performance buildings, Naropa Institute buildings, and Front Range Community College buildings. These drops should be capable of carrying upstream transmissions at a minimum speed of 10 Mbs, or one full 6 MHz analog television channel.

2.04PEG Channel signal quality

The Municipal Channel 8 needs study indicates that signal quality problems continue to affect the AT&T system. Maintaining reliable signal quality of Channel 8 programs throughout the system and maintaining signal quality of Boulder Valley School District meetings have been particular problems. A complete facilities and equipment analysis of PEG channel transmission technology and pathways is required, as well as a similar analysis for the transmission and routing of school board transmissions. Special vigilance appears to be necessary to get cable operators to pay attention to PEG signal quality.

2.05 PEG Channel Carriage and Assignments

Creating and maintaining vital access channels is of limited value unless the channels are successful in building audiences in the community. Community input in the 1995 ascertainment process was very clear that, in order to help PEG channels build and retain audiences, changes in PEG channel assignments and resulting viewer confusion should be avoided. In addition, access channels incur substantial costs during channel changes to re-do electronic and print logos, labels, on-air “IDs,” etc. For this reason, the Channel 8 needs analysis recommends that any changes in PEG channel assignments needs to be subject to approval by the City. And upon approval, costs of these changes should be borne by the cable operators.

All cable operators will be expected to provide carriage of all PEG channels originating in Boulder, plus national and state governmental affairs programming. To make this carriage possible, all operators need to connect to each access channel at its point of origin, using the highest quality transmission facilities and equipment.

A potential for viewer confusion also exists when multiple operators begin providing cable service with the potential for each operator making different PEG channel assignments. Thus, PEG channels should be available on the same channel (“on channel”) on all competing systems. PEG channels should be easily identifiable to subscribers and should use frequency or channel assignments that can deliver PEG signals without degradation.

2.06PEG Programming

The high viewership of Boulder’s municipal channel and the tremendous outcry over the temporary loss of C-SPAN II are indications of the interest in governmental affairs programming in Boulder. National experts in governmental affairs have stated that channels like CSPAN, “have tremendous value,” providing, “an independent view on how government operates,” and, “more in-depth coverage than the snippets on the network news programs.” Similarly the importance of state-level governmental affairs programming was noted by the former Dean of the University of Colorado School of Journalism and Mass Communication, saying: “We don’t have decent coverage of state government.”

There is support for current and additional programming by and about the state and national governments, such as the CSPAN national public affairs channels and state legislature and state governmental channels.

3.REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE IMPOSED UNILATERALLY

In general, service quality is a critical component of customers’ perception of any product or service, including cable TV. Cable customers are particularly sensitive to customer service issues because from 1964 to 1999, there were no true competitive alternatives to the package of services offered by AT&T. In January, 2000, US West was granted a cable TV permit, but it is not expected to begin service offerings until late 2000 and will not be able to offer competitive service to all Boulder homes until its hybrid fiber optic/copper pair technology improves (the current estimate is for at least 80% coverage at build-out). Negotiations are concluding for an election on a third franchise, to Wide Open West, which promises a comprehensive, community-wide 860 MHz system, in place by 2004.

Poor customer service ratings, as compared to other telecommunications providers, continue to plague the cable industry. In a recent survey, Direct Broadcast Satellite services consistently outranked cable companies in customer service satisfaction, with satisfaction ratings of 137 for Primestar compared to 109 for the highest-ranked cable company. AT&T was rated last among surveyed cable operators with a satisfaction score of 89. Over the years, the City has received numerous complaints of abusive customer treatment and a lack of courtesy and professionalism on the part of AT&T’s service representatives. AT&T customer representatives have been described as arrogant, unpleasant, surly, curt, unresponsive, and rude.

AT&T currently provides customer service in Boulder under the standards adopted by a consortium of Denver-area communities known as the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium. These standards were modified for needs and conditions specific to Boulder. They are attached to the attached draft cable code as Appendix A.

Since 1995, AT&T has provided customer service and customer relations through a region-wide call center that fields questions and complaints from over 450,000 customers in the Denver metropolitan area. Installations and service calls are coordinated from this call center. Prior to 1995, Boulder calls were handled by the local Boulder office. AT&T maintains a local office in Boulder for payments and walk-in transactions such as converter return or exchange. However, AT&T does not publicize the telephone number of this office, so it is available only on a walk-in basis.

AT&T billing also is handled by a multi-state processing center in Denver. Customers’ monthly cable bills are mailed approximately 30 days prior to delivery of that month’s service. AT&T customers receive their bills in one of twenty-eight billing cycles that allow customers approximately 25 days from the date the bill is mailed to pay before a late fee is assessed.

In November of 1996, the citizens of Boulder voted overwhelmingly against a proposed cable franchise renewal agreement with AT&T . Over 43% of residents voting “no” on the proposed agreement cited current or past dissatisfaction with AT&T service or the absence of a competitive alternative to AT&T. However, the vote revealed significant dissatisfaction with AT&T’s service as well.

There has been a long history of substantial complaints from citizens received by the City’s Cable TV Office. Thus, it is clear that unless customer service is dramatically improved, Boulder residents are unlikely to support a continued franchise agreement with AT&T. Boulder needs cable operators that give serious attention to improving customer satisfaction and relations. Specifically, Boulder residents have concerns about AT&T’s past performance as it relates to: (1) signal quality and reliability; (2) programming; (3) adequate FM radio signal carriage; (4) competition; (5) installations and disconnections; (6) late fees and billing cycles; (7) customer privacy; (8) adoption of local customer service standards; (9) an annual customer satisfaction and channel preference survey; and (10) maintaining a full-service local customer service office. Each of these concerns is discussed below.

3.01Signal Quality and Reliability

Clear and uninterrupted pictures and sound are the fundamental cable TV products for which the City contracts in a cable franchise. Over the years, the City’s Cable TV Office has received numerous complaints about signal quality: Pictures that “jump” or are otherwise unstable, “grainy”or “fuzzy” signals, and lines or bands of interference. Customers also object to AT&T’s frequent service outages and interruptions and AT&T’s slow response time in addressing these problems. In addition to frustration at missing the content of specific programs, customers strongly object to being charged for periods of time when their cable service is out or interrupted or when signal quality is poor.

Specific signal quality issues have been reported with respect to Channel 8 signal quality and Boulder Valley School District meetings. The quality of the school district meeting signal is a chronic problem.

This ascertainment report recommends that Boulder secure cable operators that eliminate service interruptions as much as possible, minimize unavoidable service interruptions and compensate customers for significant interruptions by fee reductions. Changes in the requirements a customer must meet to obtain service credit and new limitations on the maximum amount of service credit have caused great concern since the current AT&T re-build began in 1999. These policies should be reexamined as part of this ascertainment process.

3.02Programming

While the City recognizes that it cannot establish or dictate the programming mix provided by cable operators (except in the case of access channels and agreement on “broad categories” of programming as allowed under the Cable Act), programming has consistently been a source of dissatisfaction among Boulder residents. In particular, Boulder residents have registered their dissatisfaction with the programming mix included in the basic rate packages and have requested a number of channels that are not currently offered. Among other requests, residents have most commonly asked for increased programming for minority and disabled viewers, additional educational, foreign language, and historical programming, and carriage of all national government affairs channels. This ascertainment report treats national public affairs channels as a required access channel. Specifically customers have long requested including the History Channel and the SciFi Channel as part of Expanded Basic service and have recently objected to the addition of the Military Channel.

While the City lacks the power to compel particular programming, cable operator responsiveness to customers’ programming concerns is a valid community need and interest. This responsiveness should be demonstrated, at least in part, by a periodic survey of programming interests reviewed by the City and conducted and released to the public by each operator.

Citizens have also expressed interest in … la carte pricing and channel selection. This is a possibility that should be encouraged so long as it does not result in a net price increase for comparable service. Finally, based on customer complaints concerning confusion over channel locations, this ascertainment concludes that cable operators should provide adequate advance notice to customers of any channel line-up changes.

3.03Adequate FM Radio Service

Under the original 1964 permit, AT&T provided FM radio signals to Boulder customers as part of the company’s basic service package. This revocable permit granted AT&T’s predecessor, Colorado Televents, Inc., the right to construct such lines and cables “as are necessary for the purpose of . . . distributing television and radio signals to the inhabitants of the City of Boulder.” The current agreement between the City and AT&T requires carriage of 16 FM stations. This was a much-valued service because, unlike the rest of the Denver metropolitan area, approximately 25% of Boulder lies in “signal shadow” zones where over-the-air television and radio reception are difficult, if not impossible, making cable TV service a necessity if a citizen wants access to information contained in TV or radio broadcasts. Cable service penetration rates in this area are estimated to be as high as 80% of all homes. During the 1970s and early 1980s, AT&T began to charge customers $2 per month for this service, but FM service became a “free” part of basic service in the late 1980s.

On January 1, 1994, AT&T stopped providing FM radio signals to Boulder residents. This decision was made to permit enough bandwidth to offer more Digital Music Express channels, for which Boulder customers then paid $9.95 per month, and to make service in the Denver/Boulder area uniform. In response to the discontinuation of FM radio service, the City filed a formal complaint with AT&T for each of the more than sixty citizen complaints which were received on this issue. After almost a year of protests from citizens and City Council and formal notification that AT&T was in violation of its franchise agreement, AT&T finally agreed to restore service in late 1994.

Potential and actual interruptions in FM service have remained an on-going concern in the community and were included in comments by citizens during the 1995 ascertainment process. Boulder residents have expressed a clear need for FM radio service. Therefore, the ascertainment report recommends that the City contract with cable operators that are capable of carrying all sixteen FM radio stations normally available over-the-air in the Boulder- Denver area.

3.04Competition

The manner in which the City regulates cable TV service in Boulder should be structured to increase competitive choices available to consumers.

Like other Colorado citizens, Boulder citizens have expressed a strong preference for a competitive telecommunications marketplace, including cable TV. Some citizens have warned the City against exclusive agreements for telecommunications services. In fact, cable TV and other City telecommunications permits have always been non-exclusive, but the de facto AT&T monopoly that has only recently been challenged by US West and Wide Open West has been a significant factor in the intensity of many cable complaints. Others have requested that the City evaluate the possibility of becoming a municipal cable provider to compete with AT&T. Similarly, citizens have indicated that the City should seek opportunities for encouraging the efficiency of having multiple information providers on one cable. And the community has suggested that the City establish a conduit “utility” open to all telecommunications and cable providers.

In fact, Boulder appears to be on the brink of experiencing real competition in the cable TV marketplace. US West Broadband Services, Inc. has been granted a permit to offer cable service, and discussions are underway with Wide Open West and other providers. A proposed Wide Open West permit and franchise are being presented with this ascertainment.

The City recognizes that competition has advantages as well as disadvantages. Advantages include the possibility that competition can lead to price reductions, more and better service options, improved customer service, and innovation in technology and services. On the other hand, competition may cause construction and connectivity coordination issues, visual blight in the form of multiple street cuts and lines, and possible increased cost to all taxpayers related to repairing the street cuts. Also, there will be challenges in assuring uniform carriage of PEG channels and equity issues related to PEG channel support.

Finally, more competitors also makes for a more complicated regulatory environment that entails increased costs for administrative resources to track permit compliance and customer complaint issues generated by multiple operators. In addition, increasing competition from US West, Wide Open West and, potentially, other cable providers increases the importance of a coordinated approach to physical construction, interconnection, and shared PEG and institutional network responsibilities.

The City recognizes that, in addition to its own long-standing policy, competition is a federal and state policy and is beyond the scope of the ascertainment process.

3.05Repairs Installation and Disconnection

Boulder cable customers are not satisfied with AT&T’s service repair, installation and disconnection processes. Customers have objected to having to be home for several hours while they wait for cable technicians to arrive and having to be at home for minor service calls on lines or equipment outside the customer’s home. Customers have also complained about missed service calls even when they do wait at home, the long delay in having service installed once it is requested, and high installation costs. Boulder residents have also reported dissatisfaction with costs of AT&T’s service disconnection policy. In particular, customers have objected to being charged a disconnection fee for certain channels and to disconnection of service without adequate notice.

Over the years, the City has received numerous complaints of abusive customer treatment and a lack of courtesy and professionalism on the part of AT&T’s service representatives. In particular, AT&T customer representatives have been described as arrogant, unpleasant, surly, curt, unresponsive, and rude.

In sum, the community needs cable operators who place an extremely high value on excellent customer service, including customer service standards specific to Boulder, and insist on knowledge and understanding by customer service call center staff of needs and conditions unique to Boulder.

3.06 Late Fees and Billing Cycles

AT&T’s late fees and billing cycles are even more problematic. Five dollar ($5.00)late fees charged by AT&T sometimes approach 50% of the monthly bill. This is a problem common to the cable TV industry as a whole. Complaints received by the City’s Cable TV Office confirm the negative reaction in Boulder. Customers object to AT&T’s billing cycles that require payment in advance of receiving service. They object most strenuously to AT&T’s payment deadlines that do not allow enough time make payment and avoid the late fee as well as AT&T’s late fee policies which are much more severe than other utilities or telecommunications providers.

Customers have also experienced problems with billing errors and mis-applied charges.

As indicated above, customer sentiment strongly criticized billing for service in advance. This is, however, an industry-wide practice, that probably requires a legislative solution.

3.07Customer Privacy

The ascertainment confirms community support of the right to privacy provided to cable customers under the terms of the Cable Act. Boulder requires cable providers that respect and protects customer privacy. This includes: No unauthorized release of personal information, no third party access to personal records, and safeguards against unauthorized billing.

3.08Adoption of Local Customer Service Standards

Boulder needs customer service standards that reflect conditions specific to Boulder. As indicated in the introduction to this document, Boulder is a community with needs often very different from those of other metropolitan-Denver franchise areas. These differences are driven by geography and community demographics, emphasis on high technology, computer usage, education, income and other factors.

To remedy the problems set forth in this section, Boulder needs cable operators to follow local customer service standards, including: Signal quality, FM radio service, installation and disconnection, late fees and billing cycles, and provision of a local customer service office. These should be based on but not limited to: Following FCC standards, Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium (GMTC) standards, and updated resolution procedures. These should all be addressed legislatively, as part of the Boulder Cable Code.

3.09Annual Customer Satisfaction and Channel Preference Survey

Customer complaints over the past 15 years show a consistent dissatisfaction with AT&T programming options. One problem is the inevitable mis-matches between “generic” AT&T programming intended for regional or national distribution, and the specific programming interests of the citizens of Boulder. The ascertainment supports the need for an annual survey by operators that surveys customers concerning customer service issues and gives customers a chance to indicate channels that they would like to see added to or dropped from the system. This survey should be distributed to customers and made available to the public on an annual or other regular periodic basis.

3.10Local Customer Service Office

Due to the 30-mile geographic distance between Boulder and downtown Denver, Boulder needs a full service office located within the franchise area boundaries where cable customers can obtain a full range of services including: Bill payment, resolution of general customer service complaints, adding and deleting services, and picking up, exchanging and / or returning leased equipment including converters. The service office should be centrally located, have a listed telephone number, and have adequate open hours to serve the public.

3.11Pricing / Cost of Service

In the past several years, AT&T customers have seen large increases in the cost of cable services. Almost uniformly, residents have objected to excessive annual rate increases and have requested a cable franchise that offers more competitive pricing. In particular, citizens have often expressed the need for increased availability of service package options that would allow customers to receive and pay for only the cable programming they want. Boulder citizens are frustrated with the cable service packages currently available and have requested a system that allows them to select the channels to which they wish to subscribe without paying for those channels to which they do not wish to subscribe. Similarly, business analysts emphasize the importance of having acceptable packages of options, including package increments and premium channels.

Recognizing that local franchising authorities have been stripped of the ability to regulate all but “basic” cable rates (with basic rate regulation required to adhere to FCC standards that still allow large rate increases), one possible way of allowing residents to lower their cable bills would be through selective purchasing of services, otherwise known as “… la carte” pricing. The City’s interest in … la carte pricing reflects franchising trends in other cities. A recent survey conducted by the City of Denver indicated that “89% of area residents want AT&T to offer an … la carte option, which could lower cable bills by allowing customers to customize their programming packages.” It should be emphasized that … la carte pricing would be of no value or interest if it resulted in higher prices for comparable levels of service.

In addition. the ascertainment recommends a franchise agreement that will provide maximum purchasing choices to consumers in the form of “anti-buy through” provisions, allowing customers to purchase any additional tier or premium or pay-per-view channel once they subscribe to the most basic tier of service, customers also should be able to purchase instead of rent converters and other required home equipment.

Because FCC regulations, as now interpreted, limit the degree to which the City can regulate rates and charges, and permit a cable company to escape rate regulation even where there is no head-to-head competition, the best way to protect consumers is to require multiple operators to build out the entirety of the City.

3.12Franchise Fees

The City will also seek compensation for the use of public property, including the standard 5% franchise fees effectively set by federal law, conduit or fiber optic cable installation for the institutional network, and other non-economic benefits comparable to similar communities which have identified similar needs and objectives. These interests are particularly strong because, in order to operate, cable systems must occupy scarce and valuable public property that the public pays to acquire and maintain. The “electronic highway” metaphor is telling: No government would turn public property over to the control of a private business to build a street without first requiring that the highway be broad enough to handle anticipated traffic and open to all travelers, not just those selected by the private company. Similarly, the City has a compelling interest in ensuring that cable systems use public property in a way that benefits the entire community. This means, among other things, the City must ensure that the property is used in optimal ways and that the public receives a fair rent--in the form of franchise fees, institutional networks, and other conditions--for the use of its public property.

3.13 Transfer of Ownership

The community needs to have the ability to approve any changes in the control of cable operators that could adversely affect service in the community. For example, following the recent acquisition of TCI by AT&T, AT&T made significant changes in customer service policy (reducing the amount of service credit that could be granted for service outages and making the filing of service credit requests considerably more difficult) that resulted in strong community protests. However, due to the wording of the AT&T franchise, the community had no opportunity to review these changes.

Recognizing that the trend in telecommunications is toward a few extremely large corporations and away from the competitive environment of a larger number of smaller telecommunications providers, it is more and more likely that changes in cable system control will not involve true “new” ownership but will reflect shifts and changes between the various operating divisions of the large companies. This renders largely meaningless past franchise requirements related only to approval of “external” changes of ownership. The community needs the ability to review and approve significant changes in the controlling interest of cable providers, even if these changes are “internal” to the parent corporation.

4.FRANCHISE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

4.01Construction Timetable

Community input during the ascertainment process indicates that citizens are frustrated at the slow pace of technological improvements to the Boulder system. As early as 1995, citizens were excited and ready to subscribe to broadband Internet services, but actual roll-out of Excite@Home is not beginning until early 2000. This ascertainment report recommends that upgrades and re-builds to existing facilities be completed in one year or less, and that construction of new cable systems be completed in less than four years from final approval of the franchise agreement.

There is a need and interest in having cable systems constructed or improved promptly and pursuant to a rational plan that minimizes the disruption to the City and to customers and that any new cable operator has plans in place that ensure that construction errors are promptly corrected.

4.02Performance Monitoring

Citizen input throughout the ascertainment process emphasized not only the need for Boulder to obtain excellent cable TV service, but also the importance of structuring cable service agreements to verify current system performance and to encourage operators to continually improve and update services.

Specifically, comments to the City included recommendations for:

1) Periodic performance reviews at no more than three-year intervals;

2) “Re-opener clauses” and that allow updating of service requirements; and

3) Performance monitoring of facilities and equipment service and customer service.

It has been argued that keeping the franchise term as short as possible may be the best method of allowing the community to update service requirements as technology evolves.

In addition, each cable operator should be subject to the ongoing exercise of the City’s police, regulatory and other powers. The City needs the ability to respond to changing circumstances, over time.

There is also a need and interest in providing for testing of the system on an ongoing basis.

There is also a need and interest in ensuring that each cable operator adopt a maintenance plan; that it follows that plan (subject to regulations and applicable law), and periodically reviews and updates the plan. The plan should ensure that all parts of the system are properly maintained in a way that is designed to prevent failures.

There is also a need and interest in ensuring that each cable operator’s employees, contractors and subcontractors are competent and well-trained, and will abide by the requirements of the franchise and applicable law, as if the work were being directly performed by the operator.

Finally, there is a need and interest for cable franchise agreements that include provisions that ensure that franchisees will comply with its obligations, and which ensure that the City bears no cost as a result of the use of the rights-of-way by the cable operator. This should include not only penalties for failure to perform, but also affective mediation procedures, quick access to injunctive relief, and term shortening for any substantial franchise violation.

4.03Penalties for Failure to Perform

It is in the best interests of the community to provide for reasonable penalties in the event that the cable operators fails to meet key franchise provisions. Such penalties are the norm in contemporary contracts and are recommended by experts negotiating current cable agreements.

Staff and consultants to the City recommend setting up financial penalties for:

Failure to maintain records or submit requested information

Failure to complete construction as scheduled

Failure to provide “as built” construction maps

Noncompliance with PEG access requirements

Customer service violations

Noncompliance with facilities and equipment standards

Violation of ownership transfer procedures

The usual use of lists of liquidated damages begs the ultimate legal question of the sustainability of liquidated damages when the injury is amorphous and damages are more non-economic than strictly economic. And while any franchise should include such standard lists of liquidated damages, it should also include mediation, equitable relief and term shortening provisions. The last is critical, in that it permits an earlier review of franchise compliance and a real remedy, in the ascertainment and renewal/non-renewal process.

5.RENEWAL TERM

The length of any future agreement with AT&T is a matter of strong community interest. Analysis of the unsuccessful election seeking approval of an informal renewal agreement indicated that the length of the proposed agreement (11-19 years) was well beyond what the community was willing to accept. Over 16% of those voting “no” identified the possible length of the agreement as a factor influencing their vote. This was one of the major reasons for the defeat of the measure, although dislike of the incumbent provider was the dominant reason given.

In addition, the rapidly changing telecommunications marketplace suggests that it may be in the best interests of both cable operators and communities to have shorter agreements. There is a need and an interest in a short franchise term, first and foremost because of the pace of technological change and because PEG and I-net requirements may need to be revisited. Changes in law are anticipated in the coming years of network convergence that could require that obligations be changed. Also, because the Cable Act protects a cable operator against unfair franchise denial, a shorter term may be more reasonable for an incumbent operator.

Staff recommends that the City limit incumbent terms to 5-7 years if all the needs and interests identified in this report are adequately met. For all cable operators, there is a need and interest for a permit terms shorter than the 11-19 year term rejected by the voters in 1996. For a completely new provider, a term long enough to satisfy capital markets is required. That need should be assessed in relation to the construction obligations imposed in the proposed franchise.

6. ASSESSMENT OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The record before the City indicates that AT&T has not substantially complied with all the material terms of the existing franchise, and with applicable law. The record also indicates that the quality of AT&T’s services (not even considering the mix and quality of the cable services and other services provided over the system) has not been reasonable in light of community needs. Of particularly notable concern are the following:

1) late fees that can approach 50% of the balance due;

2) charging for services in advance of delivery;

3) severely limited credit for service outages;

4)elimination of FM and C-SPAN service that caused customer outrage to the extent that AT&T was forced to restore the services;

5)history of installation problems, including missed appointments;

6)history of signal quality and service outage problems; and

7)perception by customers that AT&T is “unresponsive,” “arrogant,” and “rude.”

These concerns were reached on the basis of customer complaints and other public input presented in detail in the preceding assessment of needs and interests.

Specific citations include:

1) During the 1995 informal ascertainment process, significant public comment was received directly related to issues driven by insufficient channel capacity on the current system. Citizens expressed concern that channel capacity limitations could cause a repeat of AT&T’s controversial past decisions to eliminate coverage of C-SPAN II and to eliminate FM service in Boulder.

2) In November of 1996, the citizens of Boulder voted overwhelmingly against a proposed cable franchise renewal agreement with AT&T . Over 43% of residents voting “no” on the proposed agreement cited current or past dissatisfaction with AT&T service or the absence of a competitive alternative to AT&T.

3) Over the years, the City’s Cable TV Office has received numerous complaints about signal quality: Pictures that “jump” or are otherwise unstable, “grainy” or “fuzzy” signals, lines or bands of interference. Also, customers object to frequent service outages and interruptions and AT&T’s slow response time in addressing these problems. In addition to frustration at missing the content of specific programs, customers strongly object to being charged for those periods of time when their cable service is out or interrupted or when signal quality is poor.

4) Changes in the requirements a customer must meet to obtain service credit and new limitations on the maximum amount of service credit recently have caused great concern.

5) On January 1, 1994, AT&T stopped providing FM radio signals to Boulder residents. This decision was made to permit enough bandwidth to offer more Digital Music Express channels, for which Boulder customers then paid $9.95 per month, and to make service in the Denver/Boulder area uniform. In response to the discontinuation of FM radio service, the City filed a formal complaint with AT&T for each of the more than sixty citizen complaints which were received on this issue. After almost a year of protests from citizens and City Council and formal notification that AT&T was in violation of its franchise agreement, AT&T finally agreed to restore service in late 1994.

6) Boulder cable customers are not satisfied with AT&T’s service installation and disconnection processes. Customers have objected to having to be home for several hours while they wait for the cable technicians to arrive and having to be at home for minor service calls on lines or equipment outside the customer’s home. Often customers have also complained about missed service calls even when they did wait at home, the long delay in having service installed once it is requested, and high installation costs. Boulder residents have also reported dissatisfaction with AT&T’s service disconnection policy. In particular, customers have objected to being charged a disconnection fee for certain channels and to disconnection of service without adequate notice. Over the years, the City has received numerous complaints of abusive customer treatment and a lack of courtesy and professionalism on the part of AT&T’s service representatives as well. In particular, AT&T customer representatives have been described as arrogant, unpleasant, surly, curt, unresponsive, and rude.

7) In particular, customers object to AT&T’s billing cycles that require payment in advance of receiving service and often contain payment deadlines that do not allow enough time make payment and avoid the late fee as well as AT&T’s late fees and late fee policies which are much more severe than other utilities or telecommunications providers. The current $5/month late fee on a bill as low as $11 has been a major source of significant customer dissatisfaction for many years. However, this is a general industry practice that may require a legislative rather than a contractual solution.

These experiences certainly show that there is a need and interest for strong customer service and PEG requirements specific to the needs and interests of the Boulder community.

SCHEDULE 1. I-net Cultural Connections

Main Public Library

Reynolds Branch Library

Meadows Branch Library

Carnegie Branch Library

The Dairy Center for the Arts

The Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (BmoCA)

The Boulder Theater

Macky Auditorium

CU Theater and Dance Building

Imig Music Building

CU Events Center

The Guild Theater

The Nomad Theater

Boulder High School

Fairview High School

9th and Canyon hotel/civic site

The Dushanbe Teahouse

All sites along “Canyon Blvd. Arts Corridor”

SCHEDULE 2. I-net Municipal Facility Connections

Municipal Building 1777 Broadway

Park Central Building 1739 Broadway

New Britain Building 1101 Arapahoe

Atrium Building 1300 Canyon

Main Library Building 1000 Canyon Blvd

Carnegie Branch Library 1125 Pine St.

Meadows Branch Library 4800 Baseline

Reynolds Branch Library 3595 Table Mesa Drive

Boulder Municipal Courts 6th & Canyon

Spruce St. Parking Structure

Pearl Street Parking Structure

Public Works Yards 5050 East Pearl

Public Works Administrative Center 5050 East Pearl

Public Safety Building 1805 33rd

Police Hill Annex

Police Crossroads Annex

Police Downtown Mall Annex

Police San Juan Annex

proposed south Boulder Police Annex

Fire Station #1

Fire Station #2

Fire Station #3

Fire Station #4

Fire Station #5

Fire Station #6

Fire Station #7 (55th)

North Boulder Recreation Center 3170 Broadway

Spruce Pool and Youth Services Building 2160 Spruce

Parks & Recreation Administrative Offices 3198 Broadway

Parks Maintenance 5200 East Pearl

South Boulder Recreation Center 1360 Gillespie

East Boulder Community Center 660 Sioux

West Senior Center 909 Arapahoe

Betasso Water Treatment Plant

63rd Street Treatment Plant 5605 63rd

75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant 4049 75th St.

Cherryvale Open Space Operations Center 66 South Cherryvale Rd.

Open Space Red Deer Facility

Municipal Airport

SCHEDULE 3. I-net Public / Educational Facility Connections

The following specific I-net connections are requested in the “Public and Educational Television Access Requirements in Boulder, Colorado” document:

Boulder Community Network (BCN)

Municipal Channel 8

(proposed) new central access facility

CATV Channel 54 (Dairy Center)

Dairy Center for the Arts performing spaces

University of Colorado

including:

Macky Auditorium

Old Main Chapel

University Memorial Center

Coors Event Center

Humanities Building

ATLAS Building

Front Range Community College

Naropa Institute

All 51 Boulder Valley School District school buildings

Boulder Public Library

City Recreation Centers

Boulder Theater

Chautauqua auditorium

Boulder Outdoor Amphitheater

DOCUMENTS

Attachment A: Proposed Wide Open West Franchise

Attachment B: Proposed Model Ordinance

Exhibit A: Wide Open West Institutional Network Proposal

Exhibit B: Institutional Network Map

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ASCERTAINMENT REPORT*

MAY 4, 2000

Exhibit 1.First Ascertainment Report, February, 1996.

Exhibit 2.Broadband Today, Boulder Open Access Report, April, 2000.

Exhibit 3.City of Boulder, Colorado, Institutional Network Requirements Analysis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, April 21, 2000.

Exhibit 4.Public and Educational Television Access Executive Summary, January 31, 2000.

Exhibit 5.Public Access Ascertainment Document, October,1998.

Exhibit 6.Educational Access Ascertainment Document, 1998.

Exhibit 7.Municipal Channel 8 Needs Analysis, March, 2000.

Exhibit 8.Review and Analysis of the Ascertainment Process for Public and Educational Access, Community Media Visioning Partners, February 7, 2000.

Exhibit 9.Analysis of Cable Television Trends in Twenty Selected Communities, The Buske Group, September, 1998.

Exhibit 10.Technical Audit of TCI Cable Television System Serving Boulder, Colorado, William F. Pohts, July 1995. (Executive Summary only.)

*These documents are assembled in a three-ring notebook and available for review in either the City Manager’s Office or Central Records.

Last Updated on Thursday, 12 July 2012 08:39