Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.210A Original Contract
nts .ko Loc le, Television: is S �t Specializing z n In Gab C �ee�a�iz g A r+ tic �'ranchrs�1't, f Vp `t �t,�l 18430 f C r u a3 8 14300222-9697 so 32Z.�697 G c• Auburn W p 9B00 t20�1 93 �n2 Ea st lJla�n Street 5.(/O FRANCHISING REFRANCHISING COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS ORDINANCE PREPARATION NEGOTIATION EVALUATION FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION ACCESS Becky Upton City Clerk PORT ANGELES CITY HALL P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Becky: Cable Communications Consultants August 22, 1994 Enclosed is the copy of our 1993 annual report for the City of Port Angeles as you requested. Let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, 3 I C MUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS A. Vice President /Director LAH /sb Enclosures 502 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 (206)833 -8380 1-800- 222 -9697 FAX: (206)833 -8430 City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report INTRODUCTION Our annual report for 1993 will be of particular interest. 1993 was a significant year for cable television in both National and local issues. This report will discuss the relevance of these events to the City of Port Angeles and summarize some of the major activities performed on the behalf of your City in the area of cable television administration. In addition to these highlights we will examine pertinent statistics of your cable television franchise last year and provide appropriate comparisons. For your further reference we have attached as appendices more detailed information such as technical summaries of FCC Proof of Performance tests, copies of various memoranda on the subject of rate regulation sent to you during the past year as well as the last 1993 edition of our quarterly newsletter, the Municipal Cable Television Regulator. Please let us know if you have any further questions regarding this report or any other areas of cable television administration. 1 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles NATIONAL 1993 Annual Report LEGAL In our comments in this report issued last year for 1992 we were more prophetic than we realized. At that time we wrote, apropos of the new Federal cable legislation, The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992's impact will not be felt fully for some time. Many of the provisions of the Act such as rate regulation will not be put in place until such time as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues specific regulations." In retrospect, however, we greatly underestimated the impact of the FCC regulations in question. We certainly did not anticipate the size, (over 500 pages in the original text, then supplemented again and again by so- called interpretations, retractions and additional details) the utter confusion of franchising authorities and cable companies alike in trying to understand what the regulations were saying, the numerous implementation postponements nor the impact that these rules would have on the public as a whole. For your reference we have attached as Appendix "A" a series of memoranda sent to you during the year which speak to the aforementioned problems. For example, after all of this activity, the cable rate freeze is still not lifted (it will be, supposedly, on February 15, 1994). As you know we are continuing to work with your community advising you on the certification process and the succeeding steps as appropriate to your situation. Although most of the attention of local government was justifiably focused on basic cable and associated equipment regulation, there were other aspects of Federal legislation that impacted the cable industry. The two most onerous to the operators were must -carry and retransmission consent. Without going into all of the details, the first mandates that a cable company carry all locally transmitted channels, the 2 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report second required a cable operator to obtain consent from a television channel to retransmit its signals. Both of those concepts are in disarray at the moment. The challenge to must carry has been carried to the Supreme Court. While no ruling has yet been issued, some sardonic comments from a number of Justices lead one to believe that the ruling may well be overturned. The concept of requiring permission for signal retransmission which was enacted after intense lobbying by broadcasters was to force cable operators to pay some negotiated dollar amount to the television stations. This simply did not work out in this fashion. The cable industry, as a man, refused to pay in cash. Accommodation was generally reached by the cable company making available a separate cable channel for the broadcaster to use without charge when channel capacity became available or a more favorable positioning of the existing station on the present cable line -up. GENERAL Certainly in no time of cable's turbulent history has it gained such recognition, both positively and negatively. The press coverage of the regulatory aspects of the FCC led to great expectations which were not realized. The "20 percent or more" savings prediction by Washington turned out to be ephemeral and the majority of subscribers saw little, if any, reduction in their monthly bills. The FCC promises to revisit this problem, but, given the Agency's track record, we do not expect anything concrete in the short run. In 1993 a new catch phrase was born: "The Communication Superhighway" or variations on this theme. As in many buzz words no one quite understands what this really means or why it suddenly popped up. It was for the most part generated by press reports of the technical ability of the marriage of computers and cable that would permit complete interactivity (back and forth communications) between the 3 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report two. Pundits hailed this as a new (although the technology has always been possible) era in the new American way of life. Several computer manufacturers, software producers and cable companies have formed somewhat tenuous alliances to further this concept. The first practical realization of this technology will be video -on- demand, whereby a subscriber could call up a given video to be displayed on the home television screen. Other more substantial enterprises to justify the lofty phrase are still somewhat off. There is no question, however, but that the cable industry is in a state of flux. The supposed competition between, eventually, a cable operator and the telephone companies may not take place in those terms. 1993 saw the merger between giant Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI) and the mighty Bell Atlantic telephone company. Other companies are also maneuvering into place. While all of this will certainly make the large get larger and the rich get richer, it does not, in itself, bode well for the alleged benefits to be gained by effective competition. Also making headlines last year is the continuing vertical integration of cable companies and the program sources. The well published off again and on again acquisition of Paramount Pictures by Viacom is only the latest activity of a decade of such positioning. Such enterprises will continue as long as there is still an independent program source. A LOOK AHEAD For cable's impact upon a community, it will be hard to top 1993. Certainly 1994 will not spawn such press coverage nor public interest. Yet, in many ways, 1994 will present many more challenges. The hard work is yet to come. The implementation of rate regulation will be tricky. A community will have to be in a situation to fully document its position against the force of the cable companies' objections. At the same time the franchising authority must be able to defend itself 4 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report from charges of its residents, who, in many cases do not fully understand the complexities of the cities' approach to rate regulation. To further complicate matters, the FCC apparently will be running far behind local government in ruling on the appropriateness of expanded basic rates thus further exposing a community to confusion and possible ambiguities with local subscribers. As a passing note, the FCC has elected to give itself the far easier assignment of examining only channel rates, leaving the more difficult task of determining ancillary equipment and installation charges to local government. If 1993 was a dramatic year for cable relations with its franchising authority, 1994 will be less well noted, but will of a certainty require far more detailed attention by your City. 5 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report LOCAL In addition to the substantial impact of Federal legislation on the City of Port Angeles in many areas of cable operation, there have been a number of local issues that have also had a major impact on the City. COMPARATIVE RATES AND SERVICES In past years we have provided charts of the cable rates charged in the City of Port Angeles as compared to other cities in the Puget Sound region. With the new Federal legislation we felt it would be useful to provide information more appropriate to the existence of rate regulation. In Appendix "B" the first chart shows the rates for basic and expanded basic on the date rate regulation became effective, September 1, 1993, as compared to the rates charged prior to that date. The second chart compares the rates charged for ancillary services and equipment that come under the City's authority to regulate. As the City continues to explore its actual involvement in the regulation of rates, we will continue to provide additional information to you. PROOF OF PERFORMANCE As we reported to you previously, in June of 1992 the FCC adopted new technical standards and Proof of Performance testing requirements. These technical standards also included a phase -in schedule for compliance and for increasing the technical specifications. In June of this year we saw the first of the increases in these specifications. We have met with the operator and reviewed all reports to determine that they continue to be in compliance with the new standards. By its very nature the data collected is complicated and not of great interest to most, however, we have attached some of the more informative data as Appendix "C" for your review. 6 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1993 Annual Report FRANCHISE FEES One of the functions of your consultants is to insure the collection of proper franchise fees. To assist in these collections 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants has developed franchise fee payment forms. These forms provide a "paper trail" for audits as well as furnish a convenient double check of units and dollars. Port Angeles now collects 5% of the cable operator's revenues. These monies are paid on a semi annual basis and are reviewed by your consultants for accuracy. Any discrepancies are subject to a complete audit by our firm. It appears that income thus received by the City of Port Angeles in the calendar year 1993 was $87,077. We estimate that for 1994, anticipating an increase in franchise fees that the figure may well exceed $100,000. 7 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants Appendix A Rate Regulation Memoranda TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: BULLETIN Clients 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants Cable Television Rate Regulation April 6, 1993 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released information on the implementation of the Cable Act of 1992's basic rate control sections. Although the FCC will not release the full text until May 1993, certain portions are available now. Some key issues: The FCC will release a table of bench marks to determine the applicable bench mark for your operator. Using this method and the rates in effect as of September 30, 1992 as the base date, if a franchisee were above such a determinant then a franchising authority (city or county, but not the FCC) may require that the rates for basic service be reduced to the bench mark rate or by 10 whichever is the lesser. Note that there is no "automatic" rate reduction. Only each certified franchising authority can effectuate this. In order to implement this empowerment a local government must be certified by the FCC. You can begin to file for certification 75 days following the official publication of the FCC's Report and Order. A franchising authority will be permitted to order rate reductions if it determines that a basic rate (using the bench mark rate) is unreasonable. The FCC may do the same for higher categories of basic rates if complaints are made by residents through the franchising authority. The same bench mark rate will apply to both basic rates and to the next category of basic so as to reduce the ability of a cable operator to minimize the effect of rate regulation through providing only "bare bones" channels. There is no regulatory system for premium channels (i.e. HBO) or Pay -Per- View. We will continue to provide you with updated information as soon as it is available. cc: Auburn Bellevue Bremerton Clarkston Clyde Hill Des Moines Everett Federal Way Hunt's Point Kent Kirkland Kitsap County Lake Forest Park Marysville Medina Mercer Island Port Angeles Pullman Redmond Normandy Park Reno Renton Richland Sparks Tukwila Yarrow Point BELLE T I TO: Clients FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: Cable Television Rate Regulation Update DATE: May 11,1993 As you may have read in the press, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has just issued its implementing regulations (FCC Document 93 -177) to empower local government to institute, under certain conditions, cable television regulation over rates and ancillary features. This is an imposing document of 532 pages full of regulations, interpretations, forms and computation charts. If you wish to review the documents themselves, we suggest that you begin with the 100 odd pages of the rules, forms and directions. Please let us know if you wish us to send this to you. However we have attached a summary of the Report and Order outlining the more specific steps that must be taken by local governments. You should find this useful in discussions with interested parties and at arriving at a decision as to what action your City may wish to take. Dependent upon our specific agreement with you, our Firm will be prepared to handle all or some of these functions on your behalf. cc: Auburn Kirkland Redmond Bellevue Kitsap County Renton Des Moines Mercer Island Tukwila Kent Port Angeles BLLLETIN TO: Client Franchising Authorities FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: 30 -Day Rate Change Notification DATE: May 26, 1993 Because of the forthcoming implementation of the FCC rate regulation procedures there has been a temporary waiver of 30 -day rate change notification by the cable operator. The FCC has pre empted notification requirements contained in local franchise ordinances. Cable operators are allowed under the new FCC rulings to have until June 21, 1993 to bring their rates in line with new rate standards. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this ruling. cc: Auburn Kirkland Redmond Bellevue Kitsap County Renton Des Moines Mercer Island Tukwila Kent Port Angeles BULLETIN TO: Clients FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: Cable Television Rate Regulation Update DATE: June 18, 1993 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) citing manpower shortages, has obtained a waiver from Congress in implementing its rate regulation procedures originally scheduled to begin next week. As a result the effective date of cable regulation is set back to October 1, 1993. We believe, however, that even this date may be extended because of budget problems. A rate increase freeze will be in effect until such time as a firm date is reestablished for rate regulation. We will continue to keep you apprised of new developments as they occur. Let us know if you have any questions. cc: Auburn Kirkland Redmond Bellevue Kitsap County Renton Des Moines Mercer Island Tukwila Kent Port Angeles BELLE T I 1 TO: Clients FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: Federally Mandated Cable Television Customer Service Regulations DATE: July 29,1993 Attached are copies of regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding customer service standards. While these rules may not differ substantially from those contained in your existing cable television franchise, they represent generally accepted industry standards. The Cable Act of 1992, however, allows a franchising authority to issue standards which may exceed those of the FCC. If this is felt necessary in your community, we will be glad to work with you to construct such more stringent rules. Absent these conditions, we suggest that your cable operator be advised that your city has adopted these FCC regulations. We have prepared a draft letter (which must be sent certified mail) which will be appropriate to these circumstances. Please note that these rules cannot be enforced until 90 days after the franchisee has received this notification. Please let us know if you have any questions on this subject. cc: Auburn Des Moines Marysville Pullman Bellevue Everett Medina Renton Bremerton Kent Mercer Island Redmond Chehalis Kirkland Normandy Park Richland Clarkston Kitsap County Port Angeles Tukwila Clyde Hill Before the rEcERAL cm:cr Iwl= SSIQd Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 8 of the MM Docket No. 92 -263 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 Consumer Protection and Customer Service By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau: The ger)ort is Order in the above- rAptioned proceeding, released on April 7, 1993, is corrected to change the subsection designations of Section 76.309 of the Commission's Rules, 47- C.F.R. 576.309. For ease of reference, a corrected Appendix B, containing the text of the new rule section, is attached. FEDERAL 0Q12 S COWISSION cnplr Released: April 15, 1993 Mass Media Bu 1 1 1 1 (ii) Excluding conditions beyond the control of the operator, the cable operator will begin working on "service interruptions" promptly and in no event later than 24 hours after the interruption becomes known. The cable Operator must begin actions to correct other service problems the next business day after notification of the service problem. (iii) The "appointment window" alternatives for installations, service calls, and other installation activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum, a four -hour time block during normal business hours. (The operator may chedule service calls and other installation activities outside :of normal business hours for the express convenience of the customer.) (iv) An operator may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment. (v) If a cable operator representative is running late for an appointment with a customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer will be contacted. The appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time which is convenient for the customer. (3) Communications between cable operators and cable subscribers- and, (i) Notifications to subscribers- (A) The cable operator shall provide written information on each of the following areas at the time of installation of service, at least annually to all subscribers, and at any time upon request: (1) Products and services offered; (2) Prices and options for programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and other services; (3) Installation and service maintenance policies; (4) Instructions on how to use the cable service; (5) Channel positions df programming carried on the system; (6) Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of the local franchise authority's cable office. 3 (B) Customers will be notified of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions as soon as possible through announcements on the cable system and in writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator. In addition, the cable operator shall notify subscribers thirty (30) days in advance of any significant changes in the other information required by the preceding paragraph. (ii) Billing (A) Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly delineate all activity during the billing period, including optional charges, rebates and credits. (B) In case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond to a written complaint from a subscriber within thirty (30) days. (iii) Refunds- Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than either- (A) The customer's next billing cycle following resolution of the request or thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or (B) The return of the equipment supplied by the cable operator if service is terminated. (iv) Credits- Credits for service will be issued no later than the customer's next billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. (4) Definitions (i) Normal Business Hours- The term "normal business hours" means those hours during which most similar businesses in the community are open to serve customers. In all cases, "normal business hours" must include some evening hours at least one night per week and /or some weekend hours. (ii) Normal Operating Conditions- The term "normal operating conditions" means those service conditions which are within the control of the cable operator. Those conditions which are Pot within the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather conditions. Those conditions which are ordinarily within the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, 4 1 special promotions, pay per -view events, rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the cable system. (iii) Service, Interruption The term *service interruption" means the loss of picture or sound on one or more cable channels. A 5 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Clients FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: Cable Television Basic Rate /Equipment /Installation Regulation DATE: August 30, 1993 Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 328, Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates. Our previous bulletins to you have outlined the steps to be taken to enable your City to be certified if you so elect. To reiterate the process we are attaching a diagram flow chart of the process. In terms of procedure, please note that the certification may be filed anytime after September 1, 1993. Be certain that the form is sent to the FCC registered mail return receipt requested. Also make certain that the cable operator(s) are sent a copy via the same mail process simultaneously with the submission to the FCC. Please send us a copy of the completed form for our files. Additional instructions are on the back of the form itself. Within 30 days your franchisee(s) must send you FCC Form 393 indicating the methodology and computation it has used to arrive at the rates for which it is requesting approval. The City then has 30 days to approve or deny the proffered rates. You may, however, ask for a 90 day extension if needed (120 days if Cost of Service is submitted). Note that the City must also pass resolutions regarding the acceptance of the FCC policies and also of public hearings. At your City's request our Firm will make a limited initial review of the methodology and reasonableness of the cable operator's submission for your guidance. There will be no charge to you for this preliminary assessment. If the City desires a more comprehensive evaluation, assuming the cable operator uses the benchmark system of computation, this service will be available to you at our standard rate for this project. There are several points to be considered. First, once this certification is sent to the FCC, the wheels will be set in motion and there is no way of stopping them. Local government must act within A p p p r p I I I I I I I I I I I the time limits established. If the submitted basic rates are approved by you, then the only time again your City will be called upon to analyze basic rate structure is when the cable operator is seeking subsequent rate hikes. Please keep in mind that this process is complex and will present a considerable work load both on the cable operator and upon the Franchising Authority. Note further that Form 328 submission by local government is only for basic rate regulation as defined by the FCC; complaints on programing service rates (e.g. another tier of channels) may be made by a Franchising Authority or by any subscriber to the FCC using Form 329. This subject will be reviewed for you in a subsequent memorandum. There will be undoubtedly many questions raised by this procedure. Please do not hesitate to let us know them. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Clients "A" List FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SUBJECT: Cable Programing Service Rate Complaint Form DATE: August 31, 1993 This is another in a continuing series of memoranda to keep you fully apprised of matters that affect your City as a result of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings implementing the Cable Act of 1992. Our memorandum of August 30, 1993 discussed potential City involvement in basic cable rate regulation using FCC Form 328. The form FCC 329 attached, is to be used by a franchising authority or subscriber who wishes to register a complaint regarding expanded basic (what the FCC calls "Programing Services rates. Unlike basic rates, which, at the option of local government may be regulated by the City, the FCC retains to itself the authority to regulate rates for the next tier(s) of programs over and above basic. The flow diagram appended sketches out the process involved, and the instructions on the reverse of the form are pretty much self explanatory. Please keep in mind that these forms will be available through the cable company which is responsible for supplying them upon a request by a subscriber. Please note item 12 which could involve the City in giving assistance in filling out the form and in providing an accompanying statement. There is bound to be a lot of confusion in this procedure, much of which is not spelled out by the FCC. For starters, one correctly filled out (italics are ours) form would suffice for the entire franchise area. Whether the FCC will accept the first one and hold the rest in abeyance is anybody's guess. Our emphasis on correctness in the form is because the FCC has made it quite clear that it will disallow any form that varies from it's (to an average subscriber) complicated steps and timetable. Another open -ended question is when the FCC will get around to doing anything about the probably thousands of Form 329's they will receive. Please note that while the FCC says it will require the cable operator to respond in 30 days, it sets no deadline at all for itself (nor does it for an appeal by a cable operator of a decision by a franchising authority regarding basic rates). All of this goes into effect September 1, 1993 and you may expect numerous calls. Note also that, except for subsequent rate increases, the deadline for filing this form (unlike form 328 which is open- ended) is February 28, 1994. Please let us have your questions. A 1 I I 0 Appendix B I I A 1 1 I A A I A I I I I Cable Rate Comparisons LY SUBSCRIBER RATES MONTHL of 9/1/9 n Dusk Cost Per Pre-Reg Post-Reg lo Rate Difference Reg Fob Reg Channel Rate Pre Reg Post Reg Satellite Cost Per Pre-Reg Post-Reg Si Channels Channels Channels Channel Rate Rate Difference Channels Channels Kirkland 15 $12.00 $11.83 15 16 2 $0.79 -1.4% fees.) $8.75 +18.0% 15 12.00 1,nchise $7.40 �keFoxestPk. 16 $0.79 12 $0.73 +21.0% 15 i N D (h a tes sl►o`*'n CO ►0 6 $5.95 $7 20 Mercer Island 16 R T H L A -9.1% 10 $0.72 f Redmond 16 0 $0.76 $14.25 $12.90 _$.8% 14 10 17 $0 76 $14.25 O N $19.95 r Consultants tsa county 3 F A L 19 C 1493 ICi p 13 17 92.0 3.1t Cable Comm September 1, Angeles $19.12 Prepared by: P° 1 $0.71 $9. a COUnty 8 27 18 Ktts P available on an ala carte basis. Additional services Appendix C Proof of Performance Tests PORT ANGELES SEQUIM Whispering Firs 27 deep W. 18th and McDonald 20 deep W. 10th and "N" St. 17 deep Four Seasons Ranch 12 deep Mt. Angeles /Key Rd. 11 deep Old Mill Rd. 13 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS TEST POINT LC)CATIONS Taylor Cutoff Rd. 28 deep W. Anderson Rd. 23 deep Barr /Howe Rd. 23 deep Reservior Rd. /off 3rd Av 9 deep Secor Rd. /Riverside Rd. 13 deep Three Crabs Rd. 18 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS SELECTED CHANNELS Ch 4 4 67.25MHZ Ch 17 D 139.25MHZ CH 13 13 211.25MHZ CH 25 L 229.2625MHZ CH 29 P 253.2625MHZ CH 33 T 277.2625MHZ CH 38 BB 307.2625MHZ 2) 7c) ,,6" aA F.C.C. COMPLIANCE AURAL CARRIER SEPARATION Procedure o ioo CH 3 F ,eEO ae,/ /c 'Wenr&X e ei7t Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4F00104 Blonder- tongue Ch 3 BPFd Frequency counter Texscan TFC -450 serial #E2508 1. Tune to Video Carrier Frequency 61.25 MHZ 2. Release Tune /Count switch (wait 5 seconds) 3. Depress 4.5 MHZ /Pix switch (wait 5 seconds) 4. Read /Record aural carrier separation on selected test channels 5. Repeat steps 1 -4 for each channel Note: Wait for oven light to extinguish before making any frequency readings. F.C.C. COMPLIANCE IN BAND CHANNEL RESPONSE .2c'R; T�rd���L I iP cc' ,QL/J/a,Q SGiiL tosC'o�°E ,57 1 a Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 Tuneable demodulator ISS Model GL- 1000A04 Oscilloscope Tektronix 2215 serial #B032359 75 ohm termination 2 BNC T type fittings 1 for 75 ohm load 1 for producing 2 viewable fields SALDELCO 260 -B spectrum calibrator (noise generator) serial #1578 use only if no multiburst test signal is provided Procedure Determine frequency response of each selected channel at at Headend. This establishes a reference. Compare in band frequencies showing greatest difference, typically .5MHZ and 3.58 MHZ. Measurement is made at modulator or strip processor output, before any other H.E. equipment. Formula to determine response is: 3.58 MHZ IRE dB 20 LOG .5 MHZ IRE Note: Depending on channel response frequencies other than .5MHZ and 3.58MHZ, should be chosen to show t GREATEST in band response difference. Use same formula at six test site locations. t Obtaining results Standard is 2dB Subtract test point reading from H.E. reference. This yields amplitude characteristic. Example H.E. response 4.19 dB (Minus) Test Point Response 3.27 dB EQUALS Amplitude Characteristic -.92 dB 1 Manpower: One person with multiburst test signal available. Two persons: when necessary to inject noise generator in IF section of processor or modulator at H.E. T/ CARRIER LEVEL TO COHERENT DISTURBANCE eo ,ude,2rtr21 61)F PR I ��P Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4f00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain noise 6 dB Spectrum Analyzer Thetacom VSM -2A Minpower 2 people /f /yzv` Procedure 1. Measure /Record peak of Video Carrier on selected channel. 2. Remove selected channel from system at H.E. 3. Switch from 60 log to 30 log scale. 4. Insert 1KHZ noise filter. 5. Measure /Record peak level of beats that occcur directly under selected video carrier or elsewhere in band. 6. Difference between measurements #1 and #5 is result. 7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 for other selected channels. .29 7_) r l /v p' e//3 I CI-43 h ,F�'sy^ cTc�ld 6,r 4/j Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX 5000 serial #4F00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain /noise 6 dB F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 Procedure 1. Measure /Record peak of video carrier on selected channels. 2. Remove selected channels from H.E. 3. Tune F.S.M. to middle of band between video and chroma carriers. 4. Depress C/N switch on F.S.M. and take reading. 5. Difference between step 1 and step 4 is C/N of selected channel. 6. Return selected channel to the system. Manpower: -Two persons CARRIER TO NOISE TEST a9 7�P .20 Ixas9 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE HUM _J Awsy 6.6. Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600B serial #1236 Procedure 1. Select one unmodulated carrier 2. Peak needle towards full scale 3. Depress hum switch and read percent of hum modulation at 400HZ k 1 1 1 1 1 1 ag Ti9f 20' g' 3f F.C.C. COMPLIANCE MINIMJM SIGNAL LEVEL TEST Procedure Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire FSM SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 serial #5809 Record all video RF levels Minimum of 3dB my .2 9 7"/ F.C.C. COMPLIANCE 24 HOUR TEST /-5,/ Equipment 100' of RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B Serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 Digital Serial #5809 Procedure At six hour intervals during a 24 hour period, record RF levels both video RF and audio RF of every channel on system. Repeat this test at six locations in easch system. Manpower: 2 persons 11:30 p.m. 5:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m. II F.C.C. COMPLIANCE SIGNAL LEAKAGE AT SELECTED TEST POINTS TAP 1 .70 /egs I 100 Tee/i//.i4y776Al ti Rd s9 Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire 81 A (Barrel) f terminator Leakage detector Trilithic Searcher tuned to Channel "C" 133.2625 MHZ Procedure 1. Attach 100' drop to test point 2. Terminate drop with 81 A and f terminator 3. Check /Record any leakage found Manpower: 1 person 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 dBuW 50 MHz /div 0 -10 -20 -30 40 -50 60 -70 -80 .1,1.1.1. ,1.1.1.1. 0 dB ATT A EtcaM La ABS =NC DL7L 6 4 ERO.ADlSAND RESPONS PRODtYC.rION SAMPLE .1.1.1.1, 264,0 MHz .I. VII :I, GEM -23 dBuW 1.1.1. .1.1.1.1.1.1,1,1W DATE 04 -20 -90 TIME 12:52 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6dB Cutoff 272.97 MHz Upper 6dB Cutoff 514.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 283.23 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 515.28 MH2 M4 300 kHz RES .1.1.1.1. .1.1.1.1. M4 ,1 Sec dBMU 10 0 -10 '-20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 FEE, uG 1111.1.1, I I 7-7.1 1G• ✓1 20 MHz /div 0 dB ATT HRCOM INT.USA .I.1.1.1.,11'1.1.1, A-TR.0 Caul LeN1S =NCB I I I I I I I I I D D --CL= 165.0 30 MHz kHz RES III III 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1,/ .I. IU 1 O, elf i I I,. 111 Waveform File: E:X.wav DATE 03 -12 -90 TIME 1:11 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6dB Cutoff 105.51 MHz Upper 6dB Cutoff 265.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 130.13 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 265.51 MHz •I,III,I.I.I.1.1 1 ,I.,.,. I J IIIIII.I. GEM -47 dBMU 1 Sec K iRCOM GAUSSIAN MG DOUBLE DENSITY DECODER Despite their limitations and inheren: picture quality problems, positive traps are still widely used to secure low penetration pay services because of their low cost and user friendly features. After years of development, similar benefits but with 'class 1' picture quality is now available using the Arcom Gaussian passive decoding system. The Gaussian system scrambles the television picture by applying a substantial Gaussian response pre emphasis to the central portion of the video passband. Additionally, a gated carrier is inserted in the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals to supplement the scrambling effectiveness. Signals are restored with an MG decoding filter at the subscribers home. The MG decoder is an inverse of the pre emphasis, resulting in a net flat response. 1 ARCOM CATV PRODUCTS The net flat response characteristics of the Gaussian encoder and decoder combination results in minimal phase and amplitude irregularities. Since maintaining a deep notch is not an objective of the system, improved temperature and ageing tolerance is inherent. The MG decoder is a four -pole temperature compensated filter It is mechanically identical to the high quality MN series mini -trap which ensures excellent long term RF integrity and stable performance under adverse weather conditions. The patented Gaussian system represents the latest in positive scrambling technology. Gaussian filters are user friendly allowing unlimited, multiple and simultaneous use of cable ready consumer features in televisions and VCRs. The system is no more secure than current positive traps, but has dramatically improved picture quality. The recommended operating range for the Gaussian system are those frequencies below 250MHz. This frequency limitation is not due to a lack of resolution, but due to excessive insertion loss at higher frequencies. 1 FEATURES 'CrASS I' PICTURES ECONOMIC AND USER FRIENDLY SMALL PHYSICAL SIZE MADE IN THE USA IlL PATENT #5,022,078 MG -8 Z1 U an CDC 11 did !1 aka MG -8 44/ 1xt)44 111 1 1� I .,1- y ,t,a.,.... .1.41,1 L, t,.. I 45.3' ,i.. I i 1 d ITT GE 11 IYI 1 hi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FEB !JG 1G IHT.USA MODEL CH NOTCH FREQ TV CHANNELS 2 THRU 8 MN -2 (2) 56.26 MN -3 (3) 81.25 MN -4 (4) 87.25 MN -6 (8) 77.28 MN -6 (6) 83.25 TV CHANNELS A -2 THRU 1(22) MN -A -2 109.25 MN -A--1 116.25 MN -A (14) 121.26 MN -B (16) 127.25 MN -C (16) 133,25 MN -D (17) 139.25 MN -E (18) 146.25 MN -F (19) 161.25 MN-0 (20) 157.25 MN -H (21) 183.26 MN -I (22) 169.25 TV CHANNEL 7 MN -7 (7) 175,25 MODEL CH NOTCH FREQ Tr. =IN 2=--- C TV CHANNELS MP -2 MP -3 MP -4 MP -5 MP-6 TV CHANNELS MP -A -2 MP -A -1 MP -A MP -B MP-C MP -D MP -E MP -F MP -G MP -H MP -I TV CHANNEL 7 MP -7 (7) 21- JAN -22 STANDARD FOUR-POLE SHARP NEGATIVE TRAPS TYPICAL BANDWIDTH 60 dB 3dB (MHz) (kHz) (MHz) (LOW -BAND) 150 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 300 6.0 300 6,0 (MID BAND) 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 230 6.0 230 8.0 230 6.0 250 8.0 250 6,0 (HIGH -BAND) 250 8.0 (MHz) 2 THRU 6 (2) 57.60 (3) 63.60 (4) 89.50 (6) 79,50 (6) 86.50 A -2 THRU 1(22) 111.50 117.50 (14) 123,50 (15) 129.50 (16) 135.60 (17) 141.50 (18) 147.50 (19) 153.50 (20) 169.50 (21) 165.50 (22) 171.50 177.60 TYPICAL BANDWIDTH 50 dB 3dB (kHz) (MHz) (LOW -BAND) 160 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 300 5.0 300 6.0 MID -BAND) 220 5.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 5.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 230 6.0 230 8.0 230 6.0 250 6.0 260 6.0 (HIGH BAND) 260 6.0 TYPICAL TYPICAL LOWER SOUND UPPER 2 ND 1 ST VIDEO (dB) (dB) (dB) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 MEP 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 7,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mob 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 MAX. ATT. (MHZ) 400 600 800 (dB) .-ter i)•-- e= 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2,0 >10 STANDARD FOUR-POLE SHARP POSITIVE TRAPS 6.0 >10 5.0 >10 4.6 >10 4.6 >10 4.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2,0 >10 r ATTENUATION (TYPICAL) MAX. ATT. VIDEO COLOR SOUND (MHz) CARRIER 400 800 800 (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) -G= C- -GCI SOC- l CC�:m -t! 24 8.0 2.0 2.6 5,0 >10 2.1 6.5 2.1 2.6 6.0 >10 2.2 7,0 2.2 2,0 4.5 >10 2.3 7.6 2,3 2.0 4.5 >10 2.6 8.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 >10 34 9.0 3,0 1.0 3.0 >10 3.2 9.4 32 1.0 3.0 >10 3.4 9.8 3.4 1.0 3.0 >10 3.6 10.2 3.6 1.0 3.0 >10 3.8 10.8 3,8 1.0 3.0 >10 4.0 11.0 4.0 1.0 2,0 >10 42 11.4 4.2 1.0 2.0 >10 4,4 11.8 4.4 1.0 2.0 >10 4.6 12.2 4.8 1.0 2,0 >10 4:8 12.8 4.8 1.0 2.0 >10 CO 13.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 >10 6.2 13.5 5,2 1.0 2.0 >10 specifications subject to change without notion THETA -COM Model XR2DT /4 -7 7 18 10 10 3.6 3.8 20 26 -13 13 1.7 2.0 20 26 -17 17 1.0 1.2 20 26 20 20 0.6 0.8 20 32 23 23 0.4 0.6 20 36 -26 26 0.3 0.6 20 36 29 29 0.3 0.5 20 36 -32 32 0.3 0.5 20 36 35 35 0.3 0.5 20 40 ALL MODELS Nom. Tap Insertion Loss Input Output Tap -Out Loss 5 -300 MHz Return Loss Isolation 1 dB Nom. Max. (dB Min.) (dB Min) 5 -300 MHz Tap Return Loss dB Min. 20 Tap to Tap Isolation -dB Min. 20 Current Capacity Amps, rms 3 Four Output Tap 5 -300 MHz Issued 2 -1 -73 Page -3 j Multi-Taps Four -Port REGAL Anixter No. 082485 082486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 082485 082486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 C M1rf. Cab,* TV 1992 5 -10 10 -50 50 -300 300 -400 400 -500 500 -600 MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz Isolation (dB) tap -to -tap 24 27 27 27 25 24 Return loss (dB min) 16 19 20 20 18 16 Tap loss tolerance (dB) ±1.5 ±1.0 ±1 0 ±1.0 ±1.0 ±1 5 EMI shielding (dB min) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Power rating 6 Amps AC /DC, 60 Volts, 60 Hz Vendor typical tap No. II loss Color code RMT64 -8 7.4 dB I black RMT64 -11 10.8 dB gold RMT64 -14 14.3 dB •blue RMT64 -17 17.3 dB navy blue RMT64 -20 20.3 dB orange RMT64 -23 23.4 dB I tan RMT64 -26 26.2 dB orange -red RMT64 -29 29.3 dB purple RMT64 -32 32.5 dB' red RMT64 -35 35.1 d$ green RMT64 -8 RMT64 -11 RMT64 -14 RMT64 -17 RMT64 -20 RMT64 -23 RMT64 -26 RMT64 -29 RMT64 -32 RMT64 -35 7.4 dB black 10.8 dB gold 14.3 dB blue 17.3 dB navy blue 20.3 dB oranae 23.4 dB tan 26.2 dB orange -red 29.3 dB purple 32.5 dB red 35.1 dB green MULTI -TAPS 5 -10 MHz T 3.7 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 T 21 25 28 30 33 36 38 40 43 C-86 360 aluminum alloy housing with double polyurethane coating Stainless steel hardware Sealed 1 -piece nickel plated machined brass F ports F port entry seal and 0 ring to seal F port through faceplate Neoprene weather gasket and interlocking tongue and groove between housing and faceplate Woven metallic RFI gasket in housing channel Printed circuit board (PCB) and plastic cover 5/8" port extensions and F port drip wells Four seizure screws and non rotational c.c. seizure post for installation consistency Tapered c.c. entry and strip gauge for correct c.c. trim length Numbered F ports 10 -50 MHz T 3.0 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 T 25 28 32 34 37 40 42 43 46 TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS 50 -300 MHz T 3.2 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Insertion loss (dB) 1300-400 400 H 00 500-600 T i T I T 25 28 32 34 37 40 42 43 46 3.5 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 Out -to -tap isolation (dB) T T 25 28 32 34 37 40 42 43 46 3.9 2.3 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 T 25 27 29 32 35 38 40 42 44 4.2 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 T 22 25 27 31 33 35 37 39 42 LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION RE Qualifications of Person responsible for conducting FCC TESTING OF CATV SYSTEM(S). Subject: James Jerome System Technician NCTV PORT ANGLELES January 8, 1993 History. James Jerome began his CATV career in November of 1979 as an installer. Due to his nature he advanced to positons of greater responsibilty over the years proving himself a capable and dedicated employee. One of these responsibilities was leakage monitoring and repair which he was entrusted with in 1981, 82 and 1983. He was a pioneer for us at that time. Subsequent equipment development and CLI compliance requirements came later. James had helped us to get a good jump on leakage monitoring and repair. After seven years as a full time installer and later installer technician it was seen fit to advance him to the level of technician. His responsibilities at this time included trouble shooting difficult installation problems,assisting with monthly headend checks,as well as trouble shooting and repairing most system outages when called upon to do so. After eight years with the company he was picked to conduct the "high level sweep" of all system trunk and bridger amplifiers. This job he has continued to accomplish well for the past five years. Line extenders have also been included in the sweep process. At about the same time complete maintanence of all three headends was gradually put in his care. Besides the routine head end work over the years he has recently been solely responsible for the transition to G- 5,C- 1,C -3, and C -4. James was utilized to accomplish the 330MHZ UPGRADE of both the Sequim and Port Angeles CATV systems(the Clallam Bay system having been previously rebuilt). Along with simple module change outs this also included the removal and replacement of 270MHZ amp cases(Phonecians) with new Texscan T series cases. James skillfully used his splicing and sweep knowledge to perform this task with minimal down time for our customers. He has been responsible for conducting NORTHLANDS QUALITY ASSURANCE tests on three separate systems on a daily and quarterly basis as called for in the Q AND A policy. During this same time James was responsible to oversee an installation crew of six, conduct monthly saftey meetings, coordinate truck maintenance, and act as a middle man for the installation crew with management and office staff. James is enrolled in his fourth of five possible NATIONAL CABLE TV INSTITUTE correspondence courses. He is also an active member in the SOCIETY OF CABLE TV ENGINEERS. He is scheduled to begin testing for the BROADBAND COMMUNICATION TECHNICIANS certification program put on by SCTE. He will be taking two tests in a seven part testing program on Janurav 27, 1993. EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY All types of FSMs (including HUM and C/N functions) Spectrum anlvser Waveform monitor Oscilloscope Frequency counter Sweep generator reciever Demodulator Leakage detection equipment CONCLUSION: In summation, I would like to say I feel completely confident of James' ability to conduct the new FCC required tests. His professionalism and reliability to complete tasks unsupervised over the years has instilled in me this confidence. Sincerely yours, Mike Sturgeon PLANT MANAGER /CHEIF ENGINEER NORTHLAND CABLE TELEVISION Sub. Tcr�in'd P��acn��j` p cTt "les/ Af,) /11)Ccit 00,lict /0 g�aGnc�► �Viaea H MO) Video l ,5000 3 4 y S 6 9g 99 i/ s 4/ 1 tS 1.5 16 i8 19 a ZA I 22 1 9 I( 10 1Z t 1/ I 13 ?A I 2g 1 I 31 33 35 I ri. i soot 3g t- 39 1 40 1/.590/ g�, ,r��ipi1 Pnqocncy Sub. Audio N garner Video 1 Audio Y 5 000 V ideo —1 2 V 600 S V.6 -0,21 is 22 9 I 10 t 1 12 l I i 23 1/...4)7 g I 2 25 24 I «1 l� i 2'7 y. y9W z 29 30 r�.�oaL. -I 31 I SS 3s L/ .50 I 3� I 4a ft 04 4t.1 /04- N V;deo z 3 4 6 99 14 15 16 11 18 19 1 20 21 22 1 1 9 10 11 1.2 13 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 3 I 34 35 I 51 38 11, 4o Prcarticucv VAadto 1/16-01 $eb. TG ps% Aad ;o icy Video ,SOO yisool Video 2 3 4 5 6 '8 99 14 15 16 11 is 19 21 22 10 11 12 13 24 26 21 30 3i 33 1 3a 35 37 I 1 39 r 40 H Precri.encl �Aedio r y5O glyg Set). Terminal Frconcacy \ikedio Video X99 i if sow V Soot .Co al PAGE l Visual Carrier Ch. 1Ctr Level /5 -5 +5 2 000000•0000 3 00000Ooaoon 4 0n000Oo0°90 s o00000.0000 6 000000000040 98 0000.0000oo 99 0000s Ooonoo 14 00000O00000 15 00.004.000000 1 6 0°00000000o 17 00000Oe0000 18 0000000.000 19 00000Oou000 20 0000oO.0000 21 00 .,oO.0000 22 0vo0 (1)000c o 7 (ovo00uou00 H 00000<D00000 9 (,O(>O 00 000 10 00000000000 11 0000.00.00ot> 12 n0000O00000 13 ono0eO00000 23 °oat-m- 00000o 24 nnnooQ00000 25 OOOOOcb(OOOO 26 00000®00000 27 0000•Ooonoo 28 00o#00oo0oo 29 000.0Ooo00o 30 0000.O00000 31 oo .o *O00000 32 000 04:000000 33 000.oO00000 34 os000O00000 35 .0000000000 36 00000Oo00oo 37 (>4,000000<x:0 38 e0000O0000o 39 00°00000000 40 00000O00000 Audio Carrier Ctr Level t -5 +5 00000Oo o o•000Ooo.00 0000000000. oonnoOn.000 00000O0000e 00000O00000 0000•O00000 000voO00000 0000.O00000 000.oOQ0000 00000®00000 0000000000o 00000O00000 0000OO.0000 00000O00000 00000D00000 0000c O00000 000 0000000U00o 00000000000 000004400000 00000O00000 000.80 oo000 00000C >0000 0000eO00000 0000•O00000 00060000000 000041000000 0000Q000000 0000.000000 00000O00000 oo ooO000ao 00.00000000 00oo0000000 oo.00000000 04000Oo000o eoc>OoO00000 00000O00000 00000O00000 00000O00000 (eie 5 Ale a mi g i t y C/N S7 I S15 S7 S7 S7 SS °Aerent Channel HUM Disturbance Response //o /eq hge_ I Z PAGE l IVisn1 Carrier Ch. t:tr Level /6 +5 1 2 000.0000000 3 00000000000 4 0000nta00000 I S 000ao0000wo 6 00000Ooe000 98 0000eO00000 1 99 00000000000 14 00000t 00000 15 00000. 00000 I 16 000so- O00000 17 00000Oy0000 1.8 00000Oo.000 I 19 00000O00000 20 00000000000 21 a0000 ®00000 22 cw000d•00000 7 cwoo4.000000 8 0000atil00000 II 9 000.000o 000 10 0000o000000 11 000ioOOcx0oo0 12 00000000000 13 oneoa000000 23 00000000000 I 24 000.0 o 000n 2.5 0000iO00000 26 0000.O00000 I 27 2.8 onawoOoonoo 00000000000 2$) 00000000000 I 30 oo.00000000 31 otxxx►O00000 32 oo c oO00000 I 33 34 00000000000 040°000000° 35 .0000000000 I 36 o000000 37 vcxw 00000000000 3.8 00000000000 I 39 40 00000000000 00000000000 l i I Aidio Carrier Ctr Level -5 +5 044011000000 oowo.O00000 00000Oo.000 o000°00.00o 00000Oo.000 o00008000o0 00000G0000a 00000000000 00000G00000 0000.O00000 00000000000 00000000000 000000e0000 00000O.O000 00000®00000 000aolkot,000 00000000000 oo000 00000 0000eO00000 o 000O00000 0000.O00000 000.0000000 oo•ooOoo000 000.o000000 o00o00000oo 0000sO00000 00000000000 00000000000 000000oo000 00*00000000 oo.00000000 OOP►00 oo.00O00000 o.000000000 o.000000000 .0000000000 ♦0000000000 o.000000000 o.000000000 00000000000 00000000000 5"6 yI y West /0'ti "4 Co'trent Channel HUM Distarbancc Response ts S cY L 1 5-7 09 O 1 /00 /eQ /c? PAGE l Visual Grrier C3►. I C:tr Level -5 4.5 2 00000Oo0000 3 000000o00e 4 0000n0oeo S o 0000eocc+o 6 000000oclitoo 98 oo.00O00000 99 ooso p00000 14 oreoib00000 15 ooeooO00000 16 os000O00000 17 000004¢500000 18 0ocoo000000 19 000004D00000 20 on0004T00000 21 00 22 oo&oo(100000 7 00000000000 S (,0000000000 9 u000o 000000 10 0U W)eO00000 Y 1 00000O00000 12 ooeooO00000 13 ono.oO00000 23 0000.O00000 24 oor>oo4300000 25 00000O00000 26 0000.O00000 27 000a0000000 28 000woO00000 29 000000tib00000 30 0000nsk00000 31 n 000O00000 32 00000)00000 33 0000.O00000 34 00000O00000 35 00000O00000 36 0oeo0000000 37 00000O0cOOO 38 ooeooO00000 39 00000O00000 40 00000O00000 Audio Carriet Ctr Level =S -5 +5 00000O00000 000000oo•oo 00000000004b 00000lD00000 00000O00000 000.oO00000 000*O000000 00000O00000 0000sO00000 ooeooO00000 0000000.000o 00000Oo•000 00000Oo 000 00000Oos000 00000O00000 000004 kp00oo 00000@00000 00000 000oo 00000O00000 o 000000oo00o 00000O00000 00000O00000 000000r 0000 00000©c)or oo 0000®O00000 00000 aoaeo000000 000000a0000 ooOOQ000000 00000O00000 oo ootD00000 000000o0000 00000O00000 000asa00000 0000a0o0oo0 00000000000 ooh 000eo000000 00000O00000 00000000000 '4D Afrit e ks- /le y Coherent Channel HUM Diiterbsnce Response ss /Jo keg ka QQ__ Viz PAGE ,22 Visual Carrier Ch. Car Lcvcl 45 -S +5 2 00000Ooo.00 3 00000000•00 4 00000Oonoow S 00000000•* 6 00000O00000. 98 00000ll00000 99 00000O00000 14 o*000tiii■00000 11 S 0000 olb00000 1d oo•oo000000 17 00000O.0000 18 00000Ooe000 19 00000O00000 20 0oo000000 21 oo.q (>O4wo0o 22 oc,00aDo 000 7 cwvoo )00000 S 00000CS0000O 9 000000($X*0 10 000aoO00000 11 ooax oOcw000 12 00000O00000 13 onaooO00000 23 00000Ooi 000 24 000.o0000r,o 25 00SO0O0000n 26 nosooOoonoo 27 oa000Ooo(►oo 25 nw000O00000 29 000000000oo 30 ooso00000oo 31 of 000O00000 32 t*000O00000 33 e000000000a 34 •0000nO00000 35 00000000000 3� oco000000 37 ootxx)0ocx>oo 38 00000000000 39 00000O00000 40 00000000000 AYdto Carrier Ctr Level -5 +5 00000O00000 00000000000 00000000000 00000QMOb0 00000000000• 00000®00000 00000®00000 0000•000000 00000000000 000eo000000 00000®00000 00000000000 00000000000 00000O00000 00000000000 000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000O00000 000000000o° o.000000000 00000000000 os 000000000 000eo000000 00000000000 0000 00~100 00000000000 00o0o000000 00000000000 00000O00000 00000O00000 00000000000 •00000O00000 .00000000000 •00000000000 00000O00000 ••0oo000000 00000O00000 oo0aa000000 000000o0000 Coherent Channel HUM Disturbance Response 1 s,3 0/ .34/ o ff /1/ /eq c)4 J ca 9 u N NtA crOt N� NaN ao •o0- o r� ��ao� NM ��a.a -Lt\ 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 I t 1 stk be, k," c U 1 O N pi rl a .c. N ri N nl i PI NI v G) h -.1 N i l" In IS rk4 \T° 11 k1 1 4 Z N. V ltd �J� to 011` J PIN N �1 �-N\ )4.. N ii- 11 N N p'1 O M N l; s J N Ti N I/ I \i lr 4141 ,L N 1 l t •1 t i i 1 I NC'1•�h `O�O���.�•,r�i�r.°N "c"' N�NNM PMnMAA? MI IN MO NM NM MI MI i N— MN NM MI E.N1 aoo ,v) NNnia .LI, k 1 1" 4 4- 1 1 1 I 1 M n' N t'1 M f u NN�N -OO �aNr�1�MN 1 1 1 1, t 1 o 4 4 t- 4 1 I z Vi 1V� 1 N N k O a-� �N r'?� �c lr F? =1:: 1 I 1 1 1 I 11 I I I wt A M h 4" 4O rgl 1P1 rooa���� -000,o I 1. i I I 1 1 1 1 f I I II NN,\NMs' M I 1 I k 1 1 1 1! 1 1 »t 1) 1 1 1 1 I I I i 1 1 I+ 1 1 N MtaN 0 I ti 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I i i I 1 I .rMPMNhN tVNQF3MPAnM Me NE =h im NE =I am um NE am NI ER NE Elm ses am =I J EN EN 4 t� 1 't"), 11 I m trO\ nnt-i)Le.Dx.i\kAnt.-1,)‘.4-'4- g...._ �'C. 1 Vii `n 1 t1 M III M CI v n 0) M i s dI fs?k so t �(�I1��O�nIrJMM NiM N u P. N o N IJ 1. Is l� try I� i -A 1 .r bA',1 L N..k\ ,00 d∎ a. o N\ N\ I pp t M m a��� I �16Ll��° Lla�4.��.���1.c■;■;.)�'�1\uo mo° \N tk■ I I I l i a l i l �\N �MMM`J 0 tiltr.kx \f, N rfli r s tom-+ N N N N N N �+j N M A P M p o q C t M M s MN r MI MN N— M r MI NM WI P Auburn Des Moines Enumclaw Federal Way Kent Kitsap County Lake Forest Park Renton Tukwila Bellevue Federal Way Kirkland Lake Forest Park Mercer Island Redmond Kitsap County Port Angeles Kitsap County N/C No Charge _1_I_( Mil I_I_I_ NMI UM MS M. MN i i i EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION RATES Additional Outlet Standard Addressable (monthly) Converter Converter Remote Control Installation Old I New I Old I New I Old I New I Old I New I Old I New I TCI N/C N /C* $2.10 $0.57 $2.10 $1.08 $3.15 N/C N /C* $3.00 $0.53 $3.00 $1.02 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.10 $0.59 $2.10 $1.11 $3.15 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.60 $2.00 $1.12 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.56 $2.00 $1.06 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.64 $2.00 $1.12 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.62 N/C $1.13 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.60 $2.00 $1.08 $3.00 N/C N /C* $2.00 $0.60 $2.00 $1.11 $3.00 VIACOM $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.34 N/C $3.40 $2.00 $0.25 $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.87 N/C $2.00 N/C $0.16 $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.34 N/C $3.40 $2.00 $0.25 $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.34 N/C $3.40 $2.00 $0.25 $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.34 N/C $3.40 $2.00 $0.25 $3.75 N /C* $1.00 $0.34 N/C $3.40 $2.00 $0.25 NORTHLAND $2.75 N /C* $2.75 N /C* 1 $3.00 N /C* $2.50 $1.05 1 $3.50 $2.32 No Monthly Fee Allowed by FCC Charge Per Hour $0.09 $0.08 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.14 Reconnect Old I New I Additional Outlet Additional Outlet (at time of install) (separate) Old I New Old I New $60.00 $40.52 $40.00 $20.26 $20.00 $6.75 $40.00 $20.26 $60.00 $38.60 $40.00 $19.30 $20.00 $6.43 $40.00 $19.30 $60.00 $40.53 $40.00 $20.27 $20.00 $6.76 $40.00 $20.27 $60.00 $40.59 $40.00 $20.30 $20.00 $6.77 $40.00 $20.30 $60.00 $40.52 $40.00 $20.26 $20.00 $6.75 $40.00 $20.26 $60.00 $36.00 $40.00 $18.00 $20.00 $6.00 $40.00 $18.00 $60.00 $51.83 $40.00 $25.91 $20.00 $8.49 $40.00 $25.91 $60.00 $49.56 $40.00 $24.78 $20.00 $8.26 $40.00 $24.78 $60.00 $52.58 $40.00 $26.29 $20.00 $8.76 $40.00 $26.29 $39.95 $30.38 $39.95 $13.87 $24.95 $22.16 $24.95 $12.66 $39.95 $36.26 $39.95' $16.38 $24.95 $26.32 $24.95 $14.62 $39.95 $30.38 $39.95 $13.87 $24.95 $22.16 $24.95 $12.66 $39.95 $30.38 $39.95 $13.87 $24.95 $22.16 $24.95 $12.66 $39.95 $30.38 $39.95 $13.87 $24.95 $22.16 $24.95 $12.66 $39.95 $30.38 $39.95 $13.87 $24.95 $22.16 $24.95 $12.66 $50.00 $50.00 $40.00 $40.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $50.00 $50.00 $40.00 $40.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 FALCON $2.50 $0.24 1 $60.00 I $45.00 *1 $30.00 $45.00 I N/C $30.00 I $30.00 $45.00 Prepared by: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants, September 1, 1993 Craig Knutson City Attorney PORT ANGELES CITY HALL P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Craig: Sincerely, Cable Communications Consultants 3 -H LE C M ICATIONS CONSULTANTS Lon A. Hurd Vice President /Director LAH /ss Enclosures July 26, 1991 Enclosed please find two copies of our annual system evaluation of Northland Cable Television's Port Angeles system. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to call us. 4517 California Avenue Southwest, Suite B Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935 -9040 System Evaluation Northland Cable Television INTRODUCTION July 10, 1991 our Company conducted an evaluation of Northland Cable Television's Port Angeles cable system. We used two different means to perform this technical review and ascertain the quality of the signal being delivered to Port Angeles subscribers. First we reviewed all of their reports of a technical nature dealing with the operation of Northland. Second we did as actual hands -on evaluation of the system itself. BACKGROUND Northland is presently operating with 106 miles of cable in the City of Port Angeles. Their cable passes 8,400 homes serving 6,475 subscribers with 27 channels of basic service and 2,104 subscribers with one or more of the four premium services. A list of all programing is available on the attached program card (see Exhibit A). The system is undergoing an upgrade from its present 31 channel capability designed at 300 MHz to a system capable of providing 41 channels and designed at 330 MHz. The upgrade is approximately 65% complete at this time and is scheduled to be 100% complete by no later than September 1, 1991. This is 30 days ahead of the scheduled upgrade as outlined in their franchise agreement. 1 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants System Evaluation Northland Cable Television TECHNICAL A visual inspection of the headend as well as a review of the headend logs (see Exhibit B) was conducted on all channels for the period of January 1, 1991 to July 11, 1991. All channels were viewed and appeared to show adequate pictures. All equipment was operating properly and the headend was very clean and organized in an efficient manner. Headend logs clearly indicated the signals are in line with FCC standards and that Northland has maintained an efficient monitoring program. Northland provided monthly reports (see Exhibit C) of all system performance tests conducted at specified points (the farthest from the headend) of the system. These reports indicate all signals are well within the guidelines established by the FCC. Our personnel conducted tests as well at the same locations and the results substantiated the reports previously provided by the cable company. Actual results from two specific locations are listed below: West 10th and M Street West 18th and Milwaukee Low 16 db 17 db Mid 18 db 20 db High 18 db 20 db Super 18 db 20 db Hum Modulation 0.25% 0.25% Carrier to Noise 48 db 48 db Most recently the FCC enacted a very stringent reporting procedure dealing with the radiation of signals. These reports required the operator to 2 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants I I I System Evaluation Northland Cable Television check the entire system and to list each location where measurable leakage could be detected as well as note the reason for the leakage and the amount of radiation involved. All of this information is then taken by the operator, plugged into a formula, and calculated out to get a CLI (Cumulative Leakage Index) number. The reports provided by Northland (See Exhibit D) were reviewed in length and a CLI number of 60.04 was calculated. This figure is considered in line with FCC standards and is consistent with most of the other operations we have reviewed. 3 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants Trouble Call Report Figures Customer Education 9 Fittings 13 Converter 10 Tap System 4 Customer Drop 3 Outlet 4 System Evaluation Northland Cable Television CUSTOMER SERVICE Another less technical measurement of the cable system is in the area of customer service. Below are the actual figures representing trouble calls received by Northland for the month of June 1991. The graph on the next page will also help demonstrate the areas of greatest dissatisfaction among the citizens of the City of Port Angeles. Additionally, Northland's ratio of complaints to subscribers is .66% for an average month. This is an improvement from the ratio of .93% which existed at the time of our previous reports. While, for obvious reasons, the objectivity of these types of reports remains open to question, given variance from community to community, certain valid comparisons can be made. 4 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants 1°1 dot jauio :snD E uza}sXs /dii 1apanuoJ sSupud pa Jauzojsnj %o£ %%N.% f f f J t t t t I 4 t 4 4 t J! J f// f J! 4 4 t 4 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%1 f J!/ f!! f f f I/ t 4 t t t J/ J f I J f I f f/ I I{ 4 4 t♦\ 4 4 t t t I f f f f f f I f J f J f, t t 4 4 4 4 t h J f f f/ J f J! f f f 1 4 4• 4 4 t 4♦♦ 1 f J! f f f J f/ J f/ f f f f %%%%%%%%%%%%%%1%% f J f f f{ J, f f I f f J O 00 f f I f, J J J f f f{ f J 4 4 t t t t 4 t t 4 f f f J/ f f J!! I{!! f t t 4 4 t t 4 t J J J/ f f J J f J 4•• 1\ 4♦ 4 J t t t 4 4 I! f f I f f J! f/ J %%%%%%%%%%11%%%%%%% O f J J! f J f f/ J f J/! f f J I/ f I/ f! f f f!!! f/ f f f 1 t t 4♦ t 1 t\ 4 4 I f! f f f J!!{ f f f J J J I{ f fi 4 1 t t 4 4 4 4♦ 4 4 t t f f f J f J J f I 4 t 4 4 1 4• t 4 t 4 4 4 f f J f f f f!! f f f f f 4 4 4 4•♦ t k 1 4 1 4 4 f f f!!! f f f f f, f 000000000 O 0 J t 1 4 LZ %6 %Z %6 MU M M M MI M MN NM I System Evaluation Northland Cable Television RATES AND SERVICES The FCC recently revised its definition of effective competition. A copy of the actual report and order is expected to be available very shortly. It is possible that this could impact the City's ability to regulate basic rates. We will be reporting on the impact of the ruling within the next two weeks. Since January 1, 1986, rate control by municipalities was removed and, as we advised, rates continue to increase. We felt it might interest you to see how the City of Port Angeles' rates and services compare to those of other cities within the state. The following chart furnishes this information. 5 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City Auburn Bellevue Bellingham Bothell Bremerton Des Moines Everett Forks Kent Kirkland Lynnwood Marysville Mountlake Terrace Normandy Park Oak Harbor Olympia Port Angeles Port Townsend Puyallup Redmond Puget Sound avg. National avg. Cable Oneratol #Basic E TCI w Viacom TCI Viacom TCI TCI 9 Viacom Summit Comm. TCI Viacom Viacom TCI Viacom TCI Viacom TCI Northland Cable TV Summit Comm. Viacom Viacom Renton TCI Sequim Northland Cable TV Sultan Tukwila Cable Television Service Analysis Subs. I Chan. Cpcty. Basic Rate W 8,1991 37 $20.00 26,073 35 $20.70 23,154 30 1 $20.00 3,700 35 $20.70 17,846 28 $18.45 3,598 i 30 $20.00 23,500 35 $20.70 1,830 19 $17.50 6,411 37 $20.00 I 8,684 35 $20.70 7,900 35 $20.70. 12,2981 30 $17.00 5,008 35 $20.70 1,121 30 $20.00 3,900 35 $20.70 36,342 35 1 $18.25 6,3341 31 I $18.20 3,134 18 $16.65 7,100 35 $20.25 11,995 35 $20.70 10,822 37 $20.00 1,500 31 $17.20 Viacom 845 35 $20.70 TCI 3,314 37 $20.00 32 $18.71 35 $15.97 1 July 18, 1991 N MN E MIN 111.1 Exhibit A Program Card FM Radio and Stereo Guide Northland Cable Television 725 East First Port Angeles, WA 98362 452 -8466 FM FREQ STA. PROGRAMMING 90.5 MTV MTV audio in stereo 92.9 KISM Rock 94.1 KMPS Country and Western 94.9 KUOW Public Radio /Classical 95.7 KLTX Soft Adult Contemporary 96.1 CKO Country and Western 96.5 KXRX Popular Rock 96.9 CKKS Jazz 97.7 CBUF Classical /French 98.1 KING Classical 98.5 CFMS Middle of Road 99.3 CFOX Rock 100.7 KSEA Easy Listening 101.1 CFMI Adult Contemporary 101.5 KPLZ Oldies /Jazz Contemporary 102.5 KZOK Rock 103.5 CHQM Easy Listening 104.3 KAFE Adult Stereo Rock 105.3 KCMS Contemporary Christian 105.7 CBU Middle of Road 106.5 KLYN Contemporary Christian 106.9 KKNW Adult Contemporary 107.7 KMGI Middle of Road CH 2 CH 3 CH 4 CH 5 CH 6 CH 7 CH 8 CH 9 CH 10 CH 11 CH 12 CH 13 CBUT LOCAL CHANNEL KOMO KING CHEK KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ NORTHLAND CABLE TELEVISION CHANNEL GUIDE Optional Premium Channels require Northland decoder box. CH 14 HBO CH 15 SHOWTIME CH 16 DISNEY CHANNEL CH 17 CINEMAX CH 18 CH 19 CH 20 CH 21 CH 22 CH 23 CH 24 CH 25 CH 26 CH 27 CH 28 CH 29 CH 30 CH 31 CH 32 The following channels require a converter, cable -ready set or cable ready VCR: CNBC QVC TNN USA CNN NOT USED WTBS NICKELODEON ESPN MTV ARTS /ENTERTAINMENT DISCOVERY LIFETIME HEADLINE NEWS TNT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Exhibit B Headend Logs -2 2 4t. o- v 0 0 /3 OK /2 I r 'I/ 1 6 0 eY- -7 J /4 2 7 O ,t. EP\IN 6, ,2.,) i'i i o f< 17 I K 1 C1 2 0 i ti .1 1 oK i Ssr au,Ly L.> y 2 oft 6 -2 k 6. (71 I-- a o 0 9/ KIAJ G c,„ d Cdrnw.ei.s7 S. u- J g F .‘c_ 6 /3 DA' °X A J .2-7 /7 0k -+r i .2, /5 O/( /o a?'7 %o /c) z'J 343 "S OA U o� 1 .30\t\K",\ i? i CO N. olk 0 t II-3_ licp \cy u) co ComNer-'7s 6 e t- 2 d -7 r7 7 ok l� 1 .j .2'/ r/: Q0 j, 01( 1 =2 b v y. I ,N? 4 1 /0 (27 13:' 1 l-� If 1 1 co C/ I 1 I- 1 0I I eV -Pi -1;----?.??40/ 0/ -4-\ ...5-1 ...5/ 0.L of /I :6 t Li A '-7::-n\% 4 -37 s..s.,44\piso 0-) ■11 4i ,i1 "0\ 7 ,i) 7 -i. 0 a t D 1 b i J j l I 1 P._ V 1 tip t t i gi 1 -3 u- 0 LI t Cowl\.&s-S .0 9- t) r— 3 5- 4- .c_ 1 /0 I Si -.7 r' /3 7/ ea/ 7 udI ,-7--30\ 76 1 2 r r1 t 0 r b \S" 0 ,,27 5 t+ fj0 'T---\ -3 -g) .7/ 8 1 i i o 0 i PI I. v k., I i 4. L -1- 1', 9- k t t i e) -i p P 1 3 2'7 1,-o 0 7 y ‘541)Dit.i■ 5 2 1 7y 1N-1-1/' 1 -e--?›,\, 4/ I/0 ,2Y7 p3D -74 5-(A/6 .27 I ll i 13D 47 5 S (Y W vi ID 2 7 ;7 0 6 r 0'1,,_ /0 ,Z 1 7 3 00 fl k J '28 //tie In A r- e) u. t vs u. ■,,N -CS t 0 O r? ‘r- 4_ P r-3/0-3 t.,,, i. 3 2-4 6,ovi 1 r)-7 -u �oj 0 K ,z ca./ Ve ,OK I\N v Ito al: 7 iPoo 1 PA ;Ai 1\90..; (i 10 ,27 V2:30 t,kA>ti I/ 1 i s.) \fl i '76 ‘Cr OX ___N_ Li) Sralc__ .).1-Src--: I/ /0 0 7 3 :06 \S t uti 6,4 __.(24__ k I 4- 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 4) ed dAiaA!Je 74 i e 1.5W y Ski �Q -y :oo 3 8 CS a t UT.■ \I 16 -3/ d 7 9 32 SO OK I ethy /1:00 IP 1//i or M v /6- t t ,s Apo w k ii (i, iaO A ..c 6 j 1 /3 30 1 3:( 11 b� 1 ‘IK 3 0 2.;3,) 6 Ok" ,,u c 13 :a e J/ /1:0 0 /-/r /C. 30 zud -2:3D _50 OK 3 7 C surd 3 1 I I M 16 1 I .g t,(--' Li- p 3 0 00 77 ~SN f\ 6 t t .4 v. u- .0 '(4 -7 z--; dl ty i 3 3 OW\ ti D /9" 4(_ 0 3p (3 30 Pco P -3 /D z2 0 O/( u Ai s (3° o l'C ea)/ 01( J� t v e I tI f 4b I 't 7 .0 .9. ---1: .6 S o u --SN4 I. /73 Y7 '-'1 t; 5 K I \I-3 li -t°3' --ril I II° \Olt IiiVP::P :97-0' 77,e--_ wkz.. i v/ 1,_ 50 ---0 is-- s5-4)4 ok- k w- saA 6)\1:-.\,\ /3 30 5 0° ffo 6.4 aK +----A I V-- 1-- r 1, 1 fi t r ti 0 oft 1 3 1 -Vo Q0:1/ egA 5 1 k 5 or c 1 1 r com\I .4c g 2.\ .64‘ e -7 r- t-A --'1 7 7 off' /3 5° 0 t. 3� (3 K .off !11 i�J �5 r 1 3° '7°\ 2;0 S i'- 1 1 C ‘4 9 v5,474-(e-c- GCT czN s /3 0 I t` Ok pi oK 12_ `'1` V C 1 \V u-/‘ v t e5 0 3 o /3 7:00 I/7 at D oft' :.3 Mf(- 3,0 2 3,7 I A c-) A y' co r, 54 01 :z 00 I/ 4 ,up i \ooi4 1 -4- i J )ic ,3 P f t t o Y q; /3 3° 7.f7o 8 3.00 7/6 45r i _3 5,0a PJ i er a--_ E /t3 3 r e v n ft�tt roo ,Q rd ,67 D e P 6 g-/ //.Z. ."5-N-.. .5-2-° 0A 1 ic r t t) C-31/42:-2-- D P ,..ot C; .46‘)" 18 3 9 oo /7 3Z -S' f sk r+ J I e t‘i\w‘ ti 1 4- 3-2_ /).-0,3 1 i L1143 °k 56''' Ojc- su (A 1 I I 1 I tit 4 Y G' I-- IW i 8 1,.. r a PV 1 1 q -1- 1� 2.Z O� SPA o OK 37- x'30 -C-->--S, 74, d ay I. su4) Pe--kk-- Li /5- 3;2_ ,2.3L.) ir,-, 3-60 oK if i "V' -2_, I:40 yc gcd.,,,.;1.■ afr, oft So CLd/ qj° .mop cid Y,0 oit o 1 L a\orc I I s V V r C /z2 oh 7 moo 1 !j/ y' ti ojt 3z l ‘ob or 73 3 a 32 3:00 SLLIJ 60 6 .1 I i__. o 1 W 8 t Cs.)0,,.0.0-s-cs ,.Gk,.. a tsN t 5_ 5 t I _f-3//7 .0 I Z I, Ssfaw Z f '3'14 it) .5'3° 30K /r yi oK 1A,A tit i,c .32_ 2:so 4/4. 6,g) ok o ),I,r\ /\3\ i -VC 00.1 5/ )/0, einth 11/ 00:#\ /o \oo5' Q T'S z'' Z° Gt oe ;C z� a drys, NNIN005D C1) "1 6 1 r n+�D70.4/ J I �1� Iv o a 9/ 8 l /V 7 ty.JN E L i g ui C c hnrr TS 4::c o a 8 S-1.- 5 1 5 C 3 -3� /g 1 s/ I/ /5 32 ':0 0 �7 3-e 0 I 1� -C� /5.. it 311 scot/ I sa a/c 3-2-17'00 c 1 Mme: /s 0/ y 1 ZgLi c/. /5 z 02• ,3b s 4 1 R4 MAY J 1 1 /c 3 a. 4 a C S3 O -Th aAi•Jel 1 /-5 3-7- 3' O K fl /oU /t= t '..:.'s. -1:' II/ Coo,1/40\.&-s-S c i 6-i/# t d ,..5." a o9 7 J /0 a \:54(k)\ Spy sp a OK S i ,277 x:30 00 i `f 5 A‘ A 3 5 1 k' D ,11 't/ 5 I N‘. v /9 i O� 40j- �..e y ?y�i C i, r 1 I j AMkA ARZAL MAY i 0 0 7 O I SNC 1)- u l ce ui a Knr■k&sTS -4C g 3 e .3 3U -OC7 P' 6 -x, 6 -x, out I df( s a j�- U, l rr 9r; ar /s 6- o it, R s... 1 ,3 fid o 0 4, pt o veZ Tb C BAS T rk i id Mk)' t/ 4 0 r 0 pg,DAy of,5U (3 10 0 hAri14 a r YJrNo ki r3 3 0 3� 4 /3 3v /'a 1/ /3 3 ,2 ::*v „'I /3 zo 04) I I I I I I I I Exhibit C 1 Monthly Performance Tests I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FS NORTHLAND CaIBLE TELEVISION Date 7 —/0--°7 Test Location System Cascade Trunk Date of Last Test t/- Z9- 'L( Tested By /Title Quality: A Excellent B Good C Fair X See Comments Visual Carrier Pix Ch Ctr Level,l Qlty C/N HUM CTB XMOD Comments -5 +5 2• 00000O00000 3 •0000O00000 4 000•0000000 5 00o•o000000 6 oo0o.000000 14 00000Q00000' 15 000b.Ooocoo 16 00000ll00000 1,7 oo000s00000 18 00000O00000 19, 00000Q00000 20 00000OE 'coo 21 ooccoloocoo 22 00000Q00000 7 00000Q00000 8 00000Q00000 9 00000Q00000 10, 00000Q00000 11 00000Q00000 12' 00000Q00000 13 00000Q00000 23 24 00000Qos000 25 00000Q00000 26 00000O00000 27 00000Q00000 28 00000Ooe000 29 00000Ote0000 3 0 00000Oip0000 31 00000Q00000 32 Q0000Od0000 33 00000Q00000 3 4 00000dc}ii000 35 oCoQoO00000 36 ob000Ooa 000 37 00000Q00000 38 oogooO00000 39 00000Q00000 40 ooQo00000oo 00000Q00000 00000Q00000 00000Q00000 00000Q00000 I) System Performance Test Point Log gr i Bri dger A it l .✓'c S'� iMr1 oo rt ica J Peak To Valley db Photo Attached Yes No QA01 Rev. 1 LE 2 3 4 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 1 Date Test Location lit/ 1 .:'r`r 7 System 'ii./02D) /vr7' 4,0/0 -�S Cascade Trunk /7 Bridger LE Date of Last Test �f,,7'S/g/ Tested By /Title fir v�,-77.., /S.i.sTP,/s, 77i..„C Visual Carrier Pix Ch Ctr Level /7 Qlty C/N HUM CTB XMOD NORTHLAND G1BLE TELEVISION Quality: A Excellent B Good -5 +5 •o0000000000 •0000000000 oc00000o000 oomoo000000 000.o000000 0000©O00000 000mo000000 000mo000000 000foO00000 000000e0000 000000m0000 000000e0000 00000000000 00000000000 000000®0000 00000000000 00000Om0000 00000 @00000 000oo0e0000 00000000000 000oo00D0000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 000000om000 0000o000000 00000000000 000000om000 000000.o000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 000000om000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 QA 0 1 Rev. 1 ,S% Peak To Valley £db Photo Att 7/20/ System Performance Test Point Log C Fair X See Comments Comments /Quir;'WlW,)r Aioi .you, ?"Q Afe/fi c` /1eci d Q ,�J Date 7-q-41 System r.q /6 Quality: A Excellent B Good C Fair X See Comments 1 1 1 QA05 Rev. 1 NORTHLAND OBLE TELEVISION Daily Test Point Log Test Location ?rE Fhts. S4P- Cascade Trunk Bridger Tested By /Title m Visual Carrier Aural Carrier Video Aural Ch Ctr Level #Z( Ctr LevelAlr Quality Quality -5 +5 -5 +5 2 o0o0oOoo.00 ,00000000000 3 00000Oooeoo 00000O00000 P 4 Q0000Oooeoo ,o00oo0o�r000 Q 5 0000o0oe000 00000Oe0000 A 6 00000000000 00000000000 4 14 00000 00000 000000v0000 4 15 0000e000000 00000Oe0000 16 '00000O00000 000000e0000 17 ooOoeO00000 00000000000 18 0000000eoo0 000000e0000 4- 19 000000e0000 00000e00000 4 20 000000e0000 ,0000e000000 --41 21 00000Oe0000 0000e000000 22 00000i00000 00000O00000 t 7 00000000000 0000e000000. 8 0000e000000 0000eO00000 9 00000000000 000eoO00000 10' 00000O00000 00000O00000 11 000e0O00000 os000O00000 •I 12 0000gO00000 00000000000 13 000rroO00000 oe000O00000 23 24 0000eO00000 000eoO00000 A i 25 :00oe0000000 ooeooO00000 Pc i 26 ooeoo900000 oo0ooO00000 27 oo0oob00000 000eoO00000 _4 28 000pooO00000 oe000O00000 J 29 e0000Q50000 oe000O00000 q. I 30 00000000000 *0000O00000 6 31 •0o00000000 e0000000000 32 00000000000 e0000000000 d i -A 33 00000000000 00000O00000 34 0000oOo000o 00000000000 35 00000000000 00000000000 36 a0000g00000 3oo000000000 37 00000O00000. 00000O00000 38 0000cO00000 00000000000 39 00000000000 00000000000 40 00000000000 00000000000 00000b00000 00000000000 00000b00000 00000000000 00000b00000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 Comments LE L°, Exhibit D Cumulative Leakage Index Reports FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 BASIC SIGNAL LEAKAGE PERFORMANCE REPORT FCC FORM 320 Approved by UM 3060 -0433 Expires 11/30/92 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 Hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering, and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. tend comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,, including suggestions for reducing the burden. to the Federal, Communications Commission. Office Of Managing Director, Washingtoh, D.C. 20554, and the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Proi,gcc (3060 -04331 Washinoton. D.C_ 20522 SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION (1) Cable System Owner: NORTHLAND CABLE TELEVISION INC Phone Number: (20A) 4 0:0 Address: 1201 THIRD AVENUE #3600 SEATTLE WA 98101 (City) (State) (ZIP) (2) Community Served PORT ANGELES (3) Community Unit No.:'WA0134 (4) Physical System Id: 000417 SECTION II LOCAL SYSTEM INFORMATION (1) Person(s) Responsible for report: Name: S7 tc, iQ /.•C'0 .C/ M 1 If C (Last) (First) Phone Number: (O .k Address: 7L C S 9>Yd6 L- (City) (State) (ZIP) SECTION III LEAKAGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA (M) (2) Identify in Exhibit A, all precisely offsetted aeronautical frequencies used by this Community Unit. (3) TEST RESULTS: CLI: lOLogIoo: 6 0 .1/ lOLogI3000: Airspace: Passed: Failed: For operators electing to conduct measurements on geographical areas that contain more, than one Community Unit, fill in the measurement information below. However, the submission of the accompanying exhibits, either B or C, may be incorporated by reference to another Community Unit filing that had» undergone' the same measurement tests as this Community Unit. Identify that Community Unit by its Community Unit Code Number. (1) GROUND -BASED MEASUREMENTS: (if used) (a) Person(s) Responsible for test: Name: G "Q.41/6 ,j M A /t' k (Last) (M)' Phone Number: (166 4s VG (b) Miles of plant tested of total plant tested: /S m; 9 Z .q_% c Time period of test: From: 2 /o' f 4' To: 1_ /2-0 t (MM DD YR) (MM DD YR) (d) Equipment Used: (..=4,1"." 7E cla .1 ,c1 1M- n/ P,(' ,3 e) 3 .,2J2 (MHz) (Make) (Model) (Test Frequency) vG& A So L-. -0/?7 (e) Attach as Exhibit B, the CLI calculation result including all parameters used. (Identify in this Exhibit all leaks 50 uV /m, and show their repaired dates, if any.) FCC Form 320 December 1989 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 BASIC SIGNAL LEAKAGE PERFORMANCE REPORT FCC FORM 320 Pudic reporting ourden for tnis collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and revtewing`the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 'of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden. to the Federal Communications Commisslon..Offlce.o Managtng Director, Washington. D.C. 20554. And the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Recuctisn Protect (3060 -0421_1 Washington r c N15 SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION (1) Cable System Owner: NORTHLAND CABLE TELEVISION INC (.2 r 2I -o Address: 1201 THIRD AVENUE ##3600 SEATTLE WA 98101 (City) (State) (ZIP) (1) Phone Number: (2) Community Served CLALLAM (3) Community Unit No.: WA0177 (4) Physical System Id: 000417 SECTION II LOCAL SYSTEM INFORMATION (1) Person(s) Responsible for report: Name: S T &t. PQ (r 6-n /Li l Ir (Last) (First) Phone Number: (2.()') £/S 2— eck6 Address: 2 6 57- .rrt /T.tG e /eA (City) (2) Identify in Exhibit A, all precisely offsetted this Community Unit. (3) TEST RESULTS: CLI: 10LogIoo: f�() .n y lOLogI3000: Airspace: Passed: Failed: SECTION III LEAKAGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Approved oy UMts' 3060 -0433 Expires 11(30/92 00 4/ A- s 6 L (State) (ZIP) aeronautical frequencies used by For operators electing to conduct measurements on geographical areas that contain more than one Community Unit, fill in the measurement information below. However, the submission of the accompanying exhibits, either B or C, may be incorporated by reference to another Community Unit filing that had undergone'the same measurement tests', as this Community Unit. 'Ide'rrtify that Community Unit by its Community Unit Code Number. GROUND -BASED MEASUREMENTS: (if used) (a) Person(s) Responsible for test: Name: Ue (Last) Phone Number: 266 Y (b) Miles of plant tested of total plant tested: (c) Time period of test: From: .2_ /0'f 9 .(MM DD YR) (d) Equipment Used: Lt/ UET tf tt. OL-L(O w 1 (Mak) S CC 3y (e) Attach as Exhibit B, the CLI calculation result including all parameters used. (Identify in this Exhibit all leaks 50 uV /m, and show their repaired dates, if any.) /lit A b42 (First) (M) /S5 m; 9L:i To: 1_12_c, /4 (MM DD YR) �ibr /.S /,3.? .,2CL$ MHz) (Model) (Test Frequency) FCC Form 320 December 198! Sheet of 1 Authorized Measured Channels Frequency Frequency '1� -A-L) 169 ,2_ .s 10 9, 2_7 5c C) 1 lz r ,Z,‘L 5 2 I 26 I() Luc.; Is Ci3) 1 z�, z.6 2..s 1 .17, 2_62_1 c7/ 0,6 l c 1 262. /Y,24 .2_4 f 6C, .2:3 (_c 2, 2 Ls" ,2_2_ ,;1E;0 soc.- 2 3 2_ 6 L 3S-,..2-e.,2 o o Z. CA%) 2.yi 2‘2.� X(-/ 1 Z6' 3'y 13oC; Cc) 24) -2.(2 c 4 2.0 y 11 c o 2 (t) 255, 42- S 2s3 ,z6 Lc( /00 3 c: C 2_ s 2_,‘ 2_ zs D1.6'z s 0 Cr) 2 5, ,L z� LAS 26z1 f Lc C sc Z 2_ 6 z, 2 i1 26 /70o NORTHLAND GIBLE TELEVISION FCC 320 EXHIBIT A AERONAUTICAL FREQUENCIES USED Comments Employee /Title M. ,4? k 6 awe-5 Detettio Equipment Operational Below Sheet of Date Detected QA02 Rev.2 NORTHLAND ABLE TELEVISION Location r 0 FCC 320 EXHIBIT B FIELD WORK 20 Microvolts /Meter Work Order Date Level Written Repaired pv /m Yes °K Probable Cause dww� Soo .1,. ks k S ti. 4 t 0 ,3 0 -4 hs `k5 v r .p r- ,O Gr- ^'t -5eac yo 7' 7 u ti�i vor' A ✓`o,o 70, 3 b coo et \-1. 7o, 3o F,t, P I_ c, t1 WSJ ti J z$,00 f 40 ST:41.- Jed s� 4 G I it, tit /2'w s Y.. o of )14.Lf/ Sif(•'ce ;h Ss, .ttAS C 47 714 4i2 C✓ ),,C1 z -5 -9r 7/4 s ,O 2 S i NA G✓ -S -c7 lfog s 1 z 5).6 s c- 2 -6 (Flo s it. 1 2 -CyI 033 4/ 2-x &2o 4i ?ft 2_4-9/ a_ Da L e„f Y 14 1- d -1 't4 ci S e4 •-o ,,.,1- R! L f- z 6��r moo)( /o 2 -7 -9( 4iy c- S1h 2- -J--�� 5i5 3 c/a se, 2-7 -9 6 F 7 2 7,1( i ll__ 6/ 6 q 0 I s P 1 QA02 Rev.2 NORTHIAND GABLE TELEVISION FCC 320 EXHIBIT B FIELD WORK Employee /Title /0,--4 4 4...- c S Detection Equipment Operational Below 20 Microvolts /Meter Yes No Sheet of l- Date Work Order Date Level Detected Location Written Repaired pv /m Probable Cause I t f, d o o' c� 0 5-00 n. 3 0 nl �o v° Cr i 4' P Jtc''J 7v,Sb L4i d.�o/° 7$ 8 7 k S a- 5 6 C6,4 /e I c4AIe haLs-e. 3� 1 NORTHLAND GABLE TELEVISION Employee /Title Detection Equipment Operational Below Sheet ,1 of y Date Detected QA02 Rev.2 Location Ii) C 12. L/ /J FCC 320 EXHIBIT B FIELD WORK 20 Microvolts /Meter Yes No Order Date Level Written Repaired pv /m Probable, Ca'uSe 70,3 o 4,4 COQ D6,30 4 .c, +i :.ASS -47 T.7//° cf7 1 Do 4. ioa ,SC. I S 3 7 c',)01,• e(" /5 610c. ,4 I trk_s /S1, T.r, Id 6 S, C, 11.., c c 47 7o, )o C1 ft,'-q1 '47 7vt`/3 7 Sto c.e --oho q9. Ss 6'LY 4 -1 L I (-/b,z6 C as�� Ifs, `l l 4,1 n 6 47' 1 78 ,2) I S,y I (r. 6)-(5-,..S-0 'I SP► 'ices in. .4 6D '',S- /.t 4r 4i»' 5 S, p 1 I .S o 1 I* S f ce dr NORTHLAND CABLE TELE\/ISION Employee /Title DetectJo,n Equipment Operational Below 20 Microvolts /Meter Sheet of 1 Date Detected QA02 Rev.2 Location Work Order Written FCC 320 EXHIBIT B FIELD WORK Date Level Repaired pv /m Yes c�'No Probable.Cause n 5 -fi T.4so LA--vi P 1 1 1 1 pa NORTHLAND G98LE TELEVISION TEST PROCEDURES Test Signal for Detection: FCC EXHIBIT B CLI PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS Frequency mhz Level•Carried on System y dbmv Type U h F1D Test Signal for Measurements: Frequency 1 :Z.Z6 mhz Level Carried on System (f� dbmv Modulation Type �J 1 �6 o Correction Factor for Unmodulated Signal I db After completing the leakage detection equipment operation verification the system was monitored for signal leakage. The system monitoring in- cluded all areas of the system may have less leakage integrity than the rest. The Test signal used for measurements was set to the same level as the highest carrier level on the system, and a 1 db correction factor was used to compensate for the difference between a modulated and un- modulated test carrier. During the test all detected leaks were logged and measured using the level measurement equipment described. After tuning the equipment to the test signal, the dipole was.placed 10' from the suspected system component keeping it a minimum of 10'. from the ground and other metalic objects then rotating the dipole on a vertical axis to obtain a peak reading. CALCULATION PROCEDURES Readings were converted to microvolts/meter using the following steps:, 1. Convert'readings to actual leakage level in dbmv using the formula: Leakage level dbmv Reading Pre AMP Gain Correction Factor Example: -39 dbmv -26 dbmv 16 db 3db 2. Convert leakage level in dbmv to microvolts using the attached chart.. Example: -39 dbmv 11.22 microvolts 3. Convert microvolts to microvolts /meter using the following formula: *Microvolts /meter voltage in microvolts x .021 x freg. in mhz Example: 31.4 microvolts /meter 11.22 microvolts x ,021 x 133.250 QA09 Pg •1 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 dBmV 1.0 my ACROSS 75ohms dBmV •p V dBmV pV dBmV pV dBmV pV -59 1.12 -29 35.48 +1 1,122 +31 35,480 -58 1.26 7 28 39.81 +2 1,259 +32 39,810 57 1.41 -27 44.67 +3 1,413 +33 44,670 56 1.58 -26 50.12 +4 1,585 +34 50,120 -55 1.78 -25 56.23 +5 1,778 +35 56,230 -54 1.99 -24 63.10 +6 1,995 +36 63,100 -53 2.24 -23 70.79 +7 2,239 +37 70,790 -52 2.51 -22 79.43 +8 2,512 +38 79,430 -51 2.82 -21 89.13 +9 2,818 +39 89,130 50 3.16 -20 100.00 +10 3,162 +40 100,000 -49 3.55 -19 112.2 +11 3,548 +41 112,200 48 3.98 -18 125.9 +12 3,981 +42 125,900 -47 4.47 -17 141.3 +13 4,467 +43 141,300 -46 5.01 -16 158.5 +14 5,012 +44 158,500 -45 5.62 -15 177.8 +15 5,623 +45 177,800 44 6.31 -14 199.5 +16 6,310 +46 199,500 -43 7.08 -13 223.9 +17 7,079 +47 223,900 -42 7.94 -12 251.2 +1 7,943 +48 251,200 -41 8.91 -11 281.8 +19 8,913 +49 281,800 -40 10.00 -10 316.2 +20 10,000 +50 316,200 39 11.22 9 354.8 +21 1T,220 +51 354,800 -38 12.59 8 398.1 +22 12,590 +52 398,100 37 14.13 7 446.7 +23 14,130 +53 446,700 36 15.85 6 501.2 +24 15,850 +54 501,200 35 17.78 5 562.3 +25 17,780 +55 562,300 -34 19.95 4 631.0 +26 19,950 +56 631,000 -33 22.39 3 707.9 +27 22,390 +57 707,900 -32 25.12 2 794.3 +28 25,120 +58 793,300 31 28.18 1 891.3 +29 28,180 +59 8 -30 31.62 0 1,000 +30 31,620 +60 1,0'00,000 QA09 -1 Pg 2 of 3 rovoi s /meter Mlc 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 CLZ 1 0 Log m 10 L (Sum Total t S 10 Log QA 09-2. x SUM TOTAL by t Complete p l frip Title Da te Plant Miles Tes ted X Mi les plan 1 56/ 0 Pg 3 of 3 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 February 21, 1990 I I I I Cable Communications Consultants Consultants to Local Governments Cable Television Rate Study Prepared for the City of Port Angeles Specializing in Cable Television: franolusing refranchi rg •access evaivatoon community needs assessments ordinance preparation franchise administration negotiation 5. 2.1.0,4 l 4517 Ca!ifornia Avenue Southwest, Suite B, Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935 -9040 Cable Television Rate Study The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was signed by President Reagan on New Year's Eve of 1984. The countdown started really on the first of 1985. The Cable Act provided for interim increases of no more than 5% for the first two years, in 1987 the lid came off and the cable operators could charge whatever they wished. You will recall that all that local government could regulate formerly were basic rates but not premium (pay) television. Once all restrictions were removed the cable industry moved quickly to lower premium rates slightly (HBO, Showtime and the like) in order to sell more of this product while at the same time substantially raising basic rates. This had a two- fold advantage for the cable industry. First they could lump the reduction in pay subscriber rates together with the raise in basic and thusly appear to have a smaller increase. The catch to this is in the market share between pay and basic and the playing of one against the other by using percentages. All subscribers must, of course, have basic cable television but, on the average only slightly more than half subscribe to pay T.V. Hence, by raising prices on all their subscribers for basic, they can realize a much larger revenues than by lowering rates for only half of their customers. This, of course, not only makes them look better in the public's perception, but, more importantly to the cabler, muddies the water for Congressional studies. This relative weight of basic to premium and to other ancillary income (installations, pay per -view, second outlets, etc.) is shown in Figure 1 which illustrates this proportion on a national scale. In August of last year the General Accounting Office (GAO) released figures indicating national cable rate statistics for a crucial period from 1 December 1986 to October 1988. These statistics are illustrated in Figure 2. The relative comparison of these figures and inflation for the same period are shown in Figure 3. As can be appreciated there has been some dispute prior to the GAO report, as to the correct amount of the rate increases. The National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) have often disagreed as to who has the more reliable figures. With this in mind, the NCTA has just released information that states that cable rates in 1989 rose by 3.8% while the consumer price index rose by 4.6 The NLC has not yet furnished figures for the same period and is unlikely to do so in the near future. On a regional basis our firm obtains its own facts from a direct survey of cable operators in 29 communities in the State of Washington. A graphic representation of the average basic rates from 1985 forward (with a to -date figure for 1990) compared to Port Angeles in this same period is presented as Figure 4. Figure 5 details Port Angeles Telecable's increase in basic rates over a four -year period for the City of Port Angeles on a percentage basis. There are several bills before Congress that purport to wish to revisit rate regulation. None has come to the floor and it seems very unlikely that any support will be given to local government at least in this session of the Congress. However, there seems to be abundant evidence that as a result of the possibility of Congress to permit rate re- regulation the cable industry has slowed down its impetuous charge to ever increasing rates. This is evidenced by the comparative slow growth of rates last year when a watchful eye was kept on them by the Hill. The Port Angeles situation, as you know, has been exacerbated by the 2 sale of the cable system to Northland Communications and the subsequent rate increases fueled in part, we would suspect by the added cost of debt service incurred by Northland in purchasing the operation. As previously expressed to the City the "lifeline" tier now offered by Port Angeles Telecable is not only higher priced than similar tiers in other cities, but also may indeed because of the lowered costs involved be more profitable to the operator than its regular package of programing. Finally, this "lifeline" tier is most likely tendered not as a reduction of rates to Port Angeles subscribers, but as a gesture to the Federal Government more recent interest in cable rates, and as a sacrificial lamb. The cable industry is betting that only the lowest rates will be regulated and that "lifeline will serve this purpose with the least impact on its profits. The definition of effective competition has been so narrowly interpreted by the FCC that it has put communities such as Port Angeles in a difficult and expensive position if a waiver is sought from the FCC. This is the bad news. The good news is that because of the absurdity of the qualifications it is likely that this issue will be revisited on a priority basis by the FCC which must make recommendations to the Congress later this year. For more in depth information of Congressional potential action we are attaching copies of our publication the Municipal Cable Television Regulator for October 1989 and January 1990 in which we have highlighted sections relating to this issue. 3 OM NM NM I MN M MI MN NM N MIll IM NM National Cable TV Revenue Growth By Source 10 6 4 2 1988 1989 1990 Basic Pay Ancillary Expanded Basic MI MI MI IIIII MI MN IMI OM MI ME ME NM MO MN 1•111 MB SIM ME MN Figure 2 Increase in National Monthly Basic Rate 12/86 -10/88 15.0 13.5 12.0 10.5 9.0 7.5 6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 0.0 12/86 10/88 Figure 3 Increase Comparing National Basic Rates to Inflation 12/86 -10/88 30 27 24 21 18 15 121 9 6 3 0- Basic Rate Inflation Rate NM IIMI ME MN 01111 MN I= NM MI IMIll Washington Average Compared to Port Angeles Rate Increases 19.2 1987 1988 Figure 4 1989 1990 (y.t.d.) WA ANT Port An N M M I MN J i MI MO M I MN Percentage of Increase in Port Angeles Telecable's Basic Rate 35 30 25 j 20 j 15 10 5 0% 0 1988 1989 Figure 5 1990 1 at able Communications Consultants The Municipal Cable REGULATOR ISSUE 1, VOLUME 13 JANUARY 1990 From the Editor's Desk:= EDITORIAL This issue of the Municipal Cable Television Regulator picks up where the previous edition left off. You will recall that we have been examining cable operators' performance in terms of consumer relations. In our July 1989 issue we made a pass at looking at average gross (no pun intended) cable subscriber complaints. In the last edition we undertook to examine the segments of consumer dissatisfaction which made up these complaints. In so doing it was necessary to bypass the far greater problem which envelops the entire orb of subscriber grievance. That is, of course, a surprise to no one— telephone handling. The reason that this category was not included in the previous analysis is that these breakdowns were taken from cable operators logs and concerned only the reason for the subscriber calling, not the problem of the handling of the call itself. This distinction is important. While there is, of course, a causal relationship (the more the operational problems, the greater the phone calls) a cablers' telephone answering must be viewed as a separate entity. "...the far greater problem which envelops the entire orb of subscriber grievance. That is, of course, a surprise to no one telephone handling." The Random House Dictionary defines an enigma as "a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence orsituation This is surely characteristic of the cable operators' handling of telephone calls. How can one explain the contradictions in the development of this amazing dynamic industry that is welcomed in over half the homes in our Country and has brought such changes in our lives that would have been inconceivable just two decades before. The cable industry in the ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CATV Newsletter $10.00 Eighties transformed itself from a glorified roof antenna to a medium that provides entertainment and education, excellence and mediocrity, right in our living rooms. Think of the technological challenges cablers have met, of the skills involved in providing programing that has changed the way Americans spend their leisure time, of the innovative marketing techniques required to market this new intangible, the business acumen that has transformed a mom and pop industry to one with some of the highest profit levels of any kind of business. The accomplishments of the cable industry have been truly wondrous. "The cable industry collectively probably lose millions of dollars just because people who want to buy their services can't even reach salespersons to take their order." Then you wonder why they can't handle a simple little problem such as telephone answering. This particular function certainly requires no particularly unique skill. Every business does it, some with more success than others but even the corner drug store does it better than cable operators. If the rest of American business were as poor at telephone handling as the cablers we would all be eating sushi instead of apple pie. The classic reason that consumers and local government give for this atrocious telephone problem is that cable operators have a monopoly so they don't have to worry whether this function is performed well or not. This explanation is just a little too pat and a bit too facile. The cable industry collectively probably loses millions of dollars just because people who want to buy their services can't even reach salespersons to take their order. It also is not because cablers want to scrimp on this area of their business or are not aware of the problem. For heaven's sake, more words have been pontificated by National Cable Television Association speakers on this particular subject than any other. As far as expenses go, many cable operators have installed intricate and costly computer systems that can tell them how many sips of coffee the customer service representative takes on his or her break. Then why does this problem persist? Regulators feel, with some justification, that just perhaps cable operators just really don't know how to answer (pun intended) this situation. As a result of consumer outcries cities have tried to impose various telephone criteria upon their local cable operators. Some of these are measurement standards. If a cabler fails to meet these goals, sanctions of one type or another may be imposed. Other franchising authorities go further and put themselves, so to speak, in the operators back pocket and want to dictate how many rings before answering, how many customer service representatives for so many subscribers, or how many telephones there should be. Others lay down rules measured in seconds for answering and hold time. No one system seems to work. With some trepidation we walk in where angels fear to tread and present some various approaches towards getting a handle on this most vexatious and ubiquitous situation. SURVEYING SURVEYS Public opinion polls are very much a part of our political life. No self respecting candidate for public office is without a poll that can be quoted. If behind, a good politician appeals for sympathy as the underdog about to be trod upon by the opposition. If polls show a lead, however, then comes the call to get on the bandwagon while the getting is good. Surveys of opinion regarding subscriber perception of a cable operator have much the same interpretation. Is the glass half empty or half full? What percentage of replies that are "satisfactory" indicate "good How fair is "fair Can answers be skewed by the structure of the question? What about extraneous factors (such as a good program recently shown on a premium channel)? Can this influence replies indirectly? How about demographics? The questions themselves beget more questions. With this in mind we recently conducted a poll of customer attitudes toward a cable operator. Two cities of comparable size were selected. The demographics of each were pretty much the same. All residents of each community were mailed the questionnaire, although as can be expected, the bulk of the replies came from subscribers to the cable system. Although the polls were taken several weeks apart the questions in each were identical. Of greater significance, however, is that while not contiguous, both communities were served by the same operator, out of the same office, with the same 2 programing, and presumably had contact with the same employees of the cabler. The results are interesting. For the sake of anonymity, we have labled one city as "A" and the other as "B However, keep in mind that these are not hypothetical examples nor adjusted results but actual returns. In both cases, although the questionnaire was prepared by our firm, the actual mailing was made by each city as a part of a regular monthly general informational packet. City "A" mailed the survey form first and "B" followed after a period when City "A's" replies were tabulated. They are presented in chart form. (See figure 1) "However, keep in mind that these are not hypothetical examples nor adjusted results but actual returns." So, what to make of all of this? If one assumes that the demographic difference was not significant then the only other variable is the time factor. If this hypothesis is valid, it then appears that the cable operator's performance is going in the wrong direction. This is particularly noticeable in the rating of complaint responsiveness. This trend, of course, is contrary to the expressed goals of the cable operator. The great disparity between the two communities' perception of picture quality is also interesting. There seems to be no tangible reason for such a difference. Plant miles are about the same, distance from the headend pretty much equal as well as the period when each was constructed. In other words, there should have been no physical reason for this discrepancy. It may be that picture quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Speculation as to the reasons, if any, for variances lead around in a circle. The point, perhaps, is not why these communities differ, but where they are similar. On the average somewhere around 75% of those who returned the questionnaire from both cities found that the telephone answering of the cable operator was less than "good While it well may be argued that people who are dissatisfied are more likely to return a survey of this type than those who are satisfied, this should be cold comfort for the cabler. In other columns of this publication we discuss the issue of telephone handling in some detail. Suffice it to say that whether these particular surveys were good, bad, or indifferent telephone handling continues to be a major problem for a cable operator. It may be that you will wish to ask a similar question of residents in your jurisdiction. If you do, you may want to compare the results with this small cross section of replies. Beware, however, of drawing absolute conclusions. If anything else is proven by comparing these two polls, it is that surveys even under like conditions can vary greatly. Obviously if a broader base than this were attempted it would provide a higher degree of reliability and the variances would tend to cancel themselves out. The point of this particular exercise, however, was to determine if perceptions of certain aspects of consumer satisfaction are common in nearly identical communities. The answer is no. This may present some problems to city officials Figure 1 Chart of Responses to Questions on Opinion Poll of a Cable Operator's Service Picture Quality 100 -J 90 80 70 6% 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Good Fair Good Fair 27% Billing Practices 17% 100 90 C 70 e 60 50 a 40 24% 20 0 lo- Poor Poor Response to Complaints loo-" 90 80 71 70 O 60 42% 45% R. 50 34% 33% a 40 30 0 20 10 0 0 Good Fair City A IM City B 3 at the time of renewal consideration. The Cable Act suggests that the franchising authority determine, in effect, if the cable operator's performance has been satisfactory. Would the answer in this case be "yes" for City "A" and "no" for City "B" An ancient wise old Roman once wrote, "What is food to one, is to others bitter poison." And to think, we didn't even know that the Romans had cable television in those days. Poor 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Telephone Answering 34 /1r %MP Good Overall Service Fair Good Fair 42% 42% 43% Poor Poor HAPPY NO NEWS YEAR New year predictions are always chancy. It is easy enough to forecast earthquakes, hurricanes, the divorce of celebrities and the date of the end of the world. What is really difficult is to predict what the Congress will do. At the risk of upstaging Jeanne Dixon, the noted soothsayer, we will nevertheless again put our neck out and predict what the next session of Congress will do about revising the Cable Act. The crystal ball tells us very clearly —in a word, nothing. In the first place Congress will have a very full plate in front of it. Certainly towards the top of Congress's "must do" are items with a much higher priority than cable rate reregulation. Clean air legis- lation, child care, cuts in defense spending as the result of the Soviet step backs are among the "must do" issues. So is some sort of a compromise on catastrophic illness insurance for the elderly. The pay raise for Congress has still not been completely resolved and, of course, the perennial issue of aid to Central America will not go away. "Certainly towards the top of Congress's 'must do' are items with a much higher priority than cable rate reregulation." That leaves very little time for the cable issue. Particularly because it is a no -win situation for Capitol Hill. Although the Danforth bill in the Senate and the Cooper -Shays companion legislation in the House are officially on the table in subcommit- tees they are being shot at by the powerful cable lobby on one side and city interests on the other. In such a situation the Congress always takes a strong stand waiting. From the city's standpoint it may be just as well. Influential congressmen are already smarting from accusations that the Cable Act of 1984 was passed in haste (it had only been around, in one form or another for about six years) and this time they want to do it right. If, by some remote chance cable legislation does come down from the Hill it likely will not do local government much good and the wait for the next go- around could last well into the next century. The 1990 version of consumer friendly cable legislation will quite likely dodge the hard issues. Possibly there might be approval for Telco's entry into the cable world. As we have pointed out before it does not appear to be that this is the panacea that the National League of Cities perceives it to be. The economic problems of an overbuild and regulatory authority at a state level will not be all it is cracked up. Even without going the Telco route, what could come out of Congress will be a few scraps for the cities just to keep them from barking too loudly. These leftovers, if thrown, will most likely be a pass at restricting vertical integration, limits of commer- cials on children's programs and possibly a look at must -carry and channel allocations. None of these measures will go very far in allaying the hunger of the need for meaningful rate regulation at the local level. Cities will still not be allowed to eat from the table. Worse, Congress might allow some sort of circumscribed regulation of "lifeline" carriage (see the Municipal Cable Regulator, October 1989) or, as one of the trial balloons floated by the cable industry, rate regulation as a function of state, not local gov- ernment. This last ploy is particularly insidious. The reason for rate regulation by a municipality is not merely for rate regulation nor for the sake of keeping rates within sane limits, but of far more importance, a means of enforcing accountability from the cable operator. If this were to be delegated to a state regulatory board it is obvious that local issues would have to be ignored. All cable operator performance would be tossed into a state blender until it became a bland mush. Congress, however, might like the idea, for it would surely take the heat from Capitol Hill and put it at the State House. It is significant that the most influential member of the cable community, John Malone, chairman of TCI, testified that the industry did not wish to have its fate tossed back to the hands of local govern- ments. He spoke of how this would again "Balkan- ize" the industry. We presume that he meant this as a pejorative. If so he must have missed a few news events. The headlines from the Balkans seem to indicate that Balkanization is doing very well, thank you. F.R.17* 71 1 THE BELLS ARE RINGING As mentioned in other columns of this edition of the Regulator, city officials have endeavored to set minimum standards of telephone response by a cable operator. At the outset of this evaluation of standards we feel that some approaches should be summarily dismissed. Several jurisdictions have attempted to prescribe a fixed number of telephone answering personnel, customer service representatives (CSR) in direct ratio to the number of subscribers. This requirement, for one thing, speaks only to quantity and does not consider the quality of the personnel. A cable operator may indeed (although we know of no operator that has anything even close to the proportions of CSRs to subscribers that would be mandated by this proposed desideratum) have an adequate force to handle the telephones, yet if these 4 *For Franchise Renewal File personnel are not trained, or more likely are assigned other priorities (e.g. sales), sheer numbers will not help the situation at all. An even less profitable recommendation is that a given number of telephone lines be required for so many calls received by the operator. Obviously this concept, standing alone, is not very helpful if there are not enough or ill- trained employees to answer them. In very narrow terms there are at least four central telephone negatives for the cable operator's operation (or for any other business for that matter) to overcome. These are busy signals, inordinate wait for answer, and abandonment time (sometimes called "the hell with it time All of these, however, are often merely the symptoms of a disease. It is a corollary that the better the service (technical, billing, and operational) the fewer the calls that will be generated to the cabler's office. Probably the first pass at this problem is to look beyond the telephones and to consult with the cable operator to determine the source of these calls and what can be done to correct or at least minimize the reason for these calls. In our last issue of the Regulator we addressed some common problems and some averages that can assist a city regulatory official in analyzing some of these root causes. Assuming that the underlying reasons for the total number of calls have been determined and that a program (with reports to the city) has been undertaken to reduce the total number of calls, then the establishment of telephone answering parameters themselves may be addressed. Figure 2 Avg. Calls Per Day, Per Subscriber 0.06 0.04 0.00 u /A .07 .04 .08 .10 Average Answering Time 200 160 120 80 40 0 183 70 41 82 i (30 sec.) 5 However, once the categories have been established the question of goal minimums, or whatever, is a tricky subject for the municipal cable administrator. First of all such standards, either through the specific written requirements in a renewal franchise or with less clout, under the umbrella of implied rights of Section 632 of the Cable Act must be accepted by your franchisee. This is, of course, easier said than done. Forgetting about the usual uproar of illegality by the cabler (or, perhaps in conjunction), it will also claim that it cannot abide judgement made on the worst conditions (i.e. outages) rather than by the day -to -day handling of its subscribers' telephone calls. This argument has always sounded a little suspicious to us. Certainly there must be a responsibility to the cabler's customers to cope with untoward (although there usually are too many to be labled "untoward situations with the same standards as for normal conditions. For example; manning the telephone with all hands including the manager, extra shifts, and postponement of other projects such as sales. Almost anything would be better than the operators' claim that a catastrophe is handled by a reassuring taped voice. It would seem to be incumbent upon a franchisee to submit its disaster plans to the city for advice and consent prior to the assumed "act of God Perhaps, too, we need a better mutual understanding as to the fancy terms "force majure" as well as "act of God" so dear to the heart of the cablers' legal eagles. In practice these grandiose designations often appear to include not only wind, cm ea c u a Abandonment Percentage Rate 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 !s 17.1 6.0 4.8 37 II City W (65,000 Subscribers) lal City X (120,518 Subscribers) City Y (42,231 Subscribers) City Z (50,411 Subscribers) Suggested Goals (5 snow, rain, and hail but also absenteeism, equipment shortages, component failure, and an engineer's upset stomach. Each jurisdiction will have to judge this plea on its own merit. There are two general ways to handle this cop -out. One is, at the sole discretion of the city, to eliminate these aberrations from a given period of measurement, or, to average these into a long enough span that will take into consideration the peaks and valleys. Once all these extraneous issues have been settled (easier said than done) it is time to get down to standards, goals, requirements, or whatever. These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. A graduate of Harvard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West. We have attempted in the preceeding charts (see figure 2) to display the performance of several cable operators as well as to indicate possible measurement standards. As we do so, however, we must reiterate that there are no absolutes within this framework. These charts from actual (not hypothetical) examples indicate considerable variances. The monitor from local governments must make his or her own decision as to the applicability of these figures compared to his or her jurisdiction. The Municipal Cable Regulator is published by 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants, a Division of 3 -H Management 0' Consultants, Inc., 4517 California Ruenue Southwest, Suite B, Seattle, Washington 99116, (206) 935 -9040 or toll -free 1 -800- 222 -9697. This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. EHcerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. For additional information about our services please contact Lon A. Hurd, Vice President at (206) 935 -9040 or 1- 800 -222 -9697. FAX (206) 932 -4284 1 1 Cable Communications Consultants 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SOUTHWEST, SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98116 0 (206) 935 -9040 FAX (206) 932 -4284 6 C able Communications Consultants The Municipal Cable REGULATOR ISSUE 3, VOLUME 12 OCTOBER 1989 Va From the Editor's Desk:= BRING OUT THE CRYING TOWEL We recall writing some time after the passage of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 that tiers (grouping of programs as a package) would disappear as the cablers could now perform their pricing magic more directly. Tiers, you will remember, were essentially an effort by cable operators to dilute basic carriage which was subject to rate regulation and load up on the unregulated "premium" channels "premium" only because the cabler would so label). It was confusing not only to would -be subscribers but to the cable salespersons as well. It got worse when many operators felt it would be more romantic to replace the drab designations of Tier I or Tier II with names such as Supercable or Galaxie. After deregulation the rules of the game changed as the cablers fell over themselves in an effort to jack up the basic package so as to attempt to justify a hefty rate increase while at the same time reducing pay television prices. From the cablers' perspective this made good business sense. First of all 100% of all subscribers have basic compared to only 50% or so (on top of the 100%) who are premium subscribers. Hence the simple arithmetic that the cabler would get more bang for the subscriber's buck (or actually several bucks) by charging all of the people all of the time, to paraphrase P.T. Barnum, rather than trying to charge part of the people part of the time. There were additional benefits from shedding tiers and getting down to basics. By reducing the subscribers charges for pay channels the cable industry could get into the numbers game. "Yes said the cabler, "we have increased basic rates by so and so much but at the same time we have reduced premium prices by such and such percentage If they talked fast enough it all sounded logical and magnanimous. Beyond the razzle dazzle of the numbers game "look at the total rate of increase and the straight forward ability to attract more premium subscribers by lowering prices; an additional incentive was to increase operating margins by reducing programing costs. Pay T.V. programs are customarily charged to the cabler /retailer either as a percent of what the program is being sold at retail (the higher the selling price, the 1 ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CA7V Newsletter $10.00 higher the charge to the cablecaster) and/or volume (the greater number of pay subscribers the lower the "wholesale" price to the cable operator). Either way impacts on the bottom line by more than the "catch up" "adjustments" as piously expounded by the cablers. Now the cable industry appears to be ready once again to embrace the tier concept. It is, of course, pure coincidence that this comes at a time when the Congress is making rumbling noises about rate regulation. Advocates of the best offense is the best defense, the cablers are again becoming offensive. Still partial to catchy names, many operators are pulling out of their musty bag of tricks another tier jerker. They have labled this "lifeline" service. This is again a basic basic package of programing. Cablers across the country are busy throwing out lifelines before their ship is torpedoed by rate regulation. If, their reasoning goes, they offer a minimum service at minimum rates they can deflect criticism that their charges are too high for senior citizens, handicapped individuals, and low income households. Indeed some of the proposed monthly rates are low. A Los Angeles operator is offering a sub basic service for $3.00 a month. A Tennessee operator, scorched by the wrath of Senator Albert Gore, will provide 12 channel service for $8.95. Others will follow. It is, of course, pure coincidence that this comes at a time when the Congress is making rumbling noises about rate regulation." The cablers view this approach as a can't lose proposition. If it silences Congressional action, fine, but even if some sort of rate regulation is reimposed the cable operators (with good reason) assume that it will again be only at the lowest level of basic service. If such a service is already in place then regulation will have little impact and operators can continue on their merry way with tiers to skim off the cream. Oh, yes, they will show that they are making a social contribution to the community after all. Don't shed a tear for the demise of tiers, for they, like the Phoenix bird, will rise again from the ashes of the Cable Act. t F.F.R.F.* if 1f 1 A GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION In the last edition (Issue 2, Volume 12) of the Regulator we discussed the subject of cable television consumer complaints. We viewed them, so to speak, with the naked eye. In this discussion we shall begin to slide them under a microscope. x Before we do, however, it may be well to attempt to understand the underlying importance of complaints to a local government. First, it would seem, is an inherent responsibility of a municipality to make certain that in granting its rights -of -way the grantor does not abuse such rights. A parallel can be drawn, for instance, in a city's right to forbid or curtail door to door solicitors who may sell an unsatisfactory product. The city, by its involvement with a cable operator has given an implied warranty, conscious or not, of satisfaction to its residents. Beyond this is the responsibility explicitly delegated by the Federal Government to the franchisor in Section 626 of the Cable Act which reads, in part, the franchising authority [will] consider whether.. the quality of the operator's service has been reasonable in light of community needs." Surveys may help a municipality to obtain a picture of the quality of the cabler's service, but polls are just a still snapshot. They may indicate an operator's performance but it is frozen in time. It shows perceived consumer views at the moment the questionnaire was taken; it does not necessarily reflect past relationships. The tracking of subscriber complaints may be, by contrast, compared to a video. It displays an ongoing picture that represents the cable operator's performance. Beyond these more abstract reasons for merely keeping score, there are positive reasons for analyzing a franchisee's operations. It is towards these ends that we have portrayed several more detailed charts of consumer complaints. All of these representations are actual figures kept in our office or derived from various cable operators in serving several of our client cities. "The tracking of subscriber complaints may be, by contrast, compared to a video. It displays an ongoing picture that represents the cable operator's performance." The first set of graphs (Figure 1) indicate complaints made directly to the city's designee (our office). We have selected six different communities of varying sizes. Both the number of subscribers and cable plant miles are indicated. In every example the prime cause for complaints that are unresolved by the subscriber's discussions with the cabler are billing problems. Note the universality of this issue. Half of these operators use remote services such as Cabledata and half have in- house billing systems. Neither work very well. Why? One of the more common reasons are employee 'For Franchise Renewal File 2 errors primarily failing to feed the computer with correct or current data. Beyond this is an inherent flaw in billing system itself —the pervasive use of the bill-in- advance syndrome. A subscriber understandably is provoked, for example, when he or she receives a notice that the cable source will be disconnected if a bill has not been paid when there are yet several days remaining before the advance billing period has even expired. The second largest category of complaints is response time. Response time, as defined in this case, includes both telephone answering time and delays in getting a technician to a subscribers home. Note here, contrary to what one might have conjectured, it seems that the smaller the system, the more troublesome the response time. Plant miles in themselves do not seem to be a factor. Picture quality concerns also appears to be a fairly uniform problem irrespective of the cable operator system size. It should be noted that this is a subjective classification. What is a satisfactory picture to one subscriber may be poor to another. However, assuming that all such calls to a city contain a similar number of valid problems, there are consistencies between various size communities. "The greater value of such graphs is for municipal cable regulators to compare their own statistics to this representative sample." Outages, as well, one would have assumed, are partly a function of size; the more plant miles and the larger number of subscribers, the greater the exposure to system outages. This does not necessarily hold true in the comparisons shown. One reason for the relative consistency is that these figures, remember, reflect only subscriber complaints. If an outage is quickly repaired a consumer may not be as unhappy as another subjected to fewer outages but longer fix times. The greater value of such graphs is for municipal cable regulators to compare their own statistics to this representative sample. If billing problems are greater than shown then one should probably discuss billing procedures with the franchisee. Inquire as to the possibility of a phase out of any advance billing procedure. Are the cable operator's clerks adequately trained? Would a training session on input to computers be helpful? Is the cabler jumping the gun on delinquent accounts in order to improve its cash flow? Similarly, if service response time is a major problem inquire, if it is not already a matter of record, as to the criteria for dispatching a technician. Ask about after hours and holiday response time. Even if the operator appears to have adequate procedures check to see if they are in fact being followed. Very probably the single largest factor in response inadequacy is the telephone answering. In the next edition of the Regulator we will discuss telephone standards and actual performance. Don't wait. Find out how the cabler is doing in this field. Call up the operator yourself. Listen to how many rings it takes to answer. Without identifying your position ask questions and see how long you are put on hold. You may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other 0 CITY "A" (7,115 Subscribers -106 Plant Miles) 46 20 20 CITY "C" (9,098 Subscribers 72 Plant Miles) 33% 29 21 15 2% 0 20 40 60 80 100 CITY "E" (21,294 Subscribers -201 Plant Miles) 45 40 40 r 60 80 100 I I 60 80 100 If residents of your community report picture problems appreciably greater than the sample shown here you may indeed have reason to worry. It may reflect signal degradation because of engineering design or inadequate maintenance. The next series of these charts (Figure 2) analyzes picture problems under a still more high power microscope. These figures are obtained from a review of the cable operator's logs. If your franchise does not Figure 1 3 Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other Billing Service Response Picture Quality Outages Other CITY "B" (11,296 Subscribers -117 Plant Miles) 50% 9% 6% 30 5% I 0 20 40 60 80 100 CITY "D" (5,406 Subscribers -85 Plant Miles) 46% 0 20 40 60 CITY "F" (10,118 Subscribers, 101 Plant Miles) 51 A 4% 2% 0 25 18 20 40 r 80 100 60 80 100 explicitly give your community the right to examine such logs, ask for them anyway. If refused it might well give the municipal oversight official a pause to wonder why? Obviously if the cabler had nothing to fear from such disclosure it would not hesitate to release such information. In comparing technical performance of one cable system to another, the question of classification always arises. These graphs indicate only seven categories. 55% CITY "A" (6,352 Subscribers, 106 Plant Miles) 2% 3% CITY "B" (35,000 Subscribers -635 Plant Miles) 6% 2% 18 II Bad Amplifier Illegal Hookup 3% 5% 7% 11% For the sake of simplicity some minor subdivisions have been combined under a more general grouping. It is interesting to note that in all four of these cable systems it is the passive hardware (or workmanship) that apparently causes the greater headache. The problems of bad taps, that is the connection from a feeder line to the home, and the internal connection are responsible for the majority of service calls. 4 36% CITY "C" (11,296 Subscribers -116 Plant Miles) CITY "D" (53,837 Subscribers -201 Plant Miles) 2% 5% 53% 18% ,f Bad Splitter Bad Taps Set Problems Bad Converter Figure 2 8% 6% 8% Ili Bad Drops Fittings Because these are essentially mechanical problems as compared say, to amplifier problems which are electronic, the training of an operators work force may be called into question. These charts are what you wish t� make of them. Shakespeare wrote "comparisons are odorous" but then the title of the play with these words was Much Do About Nothing. Take your pick. FEDS FIGURE IT OUT The past couple of years have seen a different type of battle between the cable industry and its would -be regulators. This has not been, as one would assume, a war of words, but a war of numbers. Specifically, numbers about how much cable subscriber rates have risen since deregulation. The National League of Cities came up with one figure and the National Cable Television Association came up with another and the two are not even close. Both sides cry "foul" and bombard the Congress with "firm" statistics. We will not demean ourselves by quoting the old chestnut that goes "figures don't lie but... etc., etc. Nor is the variance a deliberate attempt by any side to falsify data; the dispute was merely because of the lack of base points (not to be confused with "basic and mutual agreement on the definition of common postulates. It was time for a neutral body to step in that was not biased nor committed to proving or disproving certain assumptions. The stakes are high. If the cablers can prove that the rate increases are merely reflective of inflation or other specific economic conditions there would be very little reason for the Federal Government to act to restore rate regulation. On the other hand, if local government and a concerned public -at -large could document that the increases were greater than those in a market influenced economy, then it could be argued that some control should be placed upon this de facto monopoly. The catch up theory that extraordinary price increases were necessary to right the inequalities of previous regulation surely could not be taken seriously by anyone inside of the cable industry. The old saying that it is hard to find a doctor who is penniless holds even more true when applied to cable operations. We know of no bankrupt companies in the go -go world of cablers. We know of no distress sales of any major cable system because of its low return on investment and probably would not believe it if we heard it. No, the catch -up theory only belongs in a squeeze bottle and, it is hoped, Congress knows this very well. "The catch up theory that extraordinary price increases were necessary to right the inequalities of previous regulation surely could not be taken seriously by anyone outside of the cable industry." Into this fray of whose survey is the more accurate now steps the long arm of the Government, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The same GAO that strikes fear into the Defense Industry. The same GAO that makes federal agency heads seek employment in the private sector. The same GAO whose impeccable credentials are touted by Congressional Committee Chairmen and Presidents alike. The GAO survey presents some startling figures. For example: basic rates increased in the period of December 1986 (the "kick -in" point of the Cable Act) to October 1988 by 29 from an average of $11.23 to $14.88. Put another way, basic rates rose more than s 40% for over a third of cable subscribers. Further, according to the GAO survey, the revenue per subscriber, the matrix, the cablers' measuring point rose to $24.68 per subscriber or 14 After factoring in the composite inflation rate, this still represents an increase of 8 As most of us had been aware from our own jurisdictions the revenue per subscriber was $24.68 in October 1988. Parenthetically almost a year later it is slightly over $25.00. Perhaps the most interesting reaction to the GAO study was not that of the NLC but of the eminent Dr. John Malone, the chief executive of giant Tele- Communications, Inc. He is quoted as saying that the report reflected favorably on the industry. Frankly that remark by the esteemed Dr. Malone (and we imply no malice whatsoever to his well deserved distinguished position in the cable industry) seems surprising, but his next quotation that rate regulation "would not substantially and inversely affect our ability to grow the company" does not. It seems to us that there is a non sequitur in Dr. Malone's comments. If the GAO studies in fact reflected favorably upon the cable industry why then does he seem to deduce that this "favorable" report may lead to rate regulation? The NLC, so far at least, has not gloated that these price increase findings are, in some cases, even higher than its own survey showed. In any event it appears that the pm- regulation side has won the first battle of the statistics. REWIND/FAST FORWARD It would seem that the officials of Fargo, N.D. are doing local government a disfavor by bringing suit against a satellite master antenna television (SMATV) operator to force it to pay a franchise fee. This SMATV operator does not use the city rights -of -way in a physical sense but through infrared or microwave transmissions through the "air While there may be merit to wish to enhance the city's coffers; to assert a community's right to impose the same set of standards as with a conventional cable system is a pretty long reach. The prerogative of a city to control its own rights of -way is an inherent exercise of its legal power. The amorphous control over electronic transmissions is something else again. This stance could well weaken local government's long standing position. The worst part of it is that the cable industry would probably love it. It would give them more ammunition to the claim that cable operators have competition. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is inviting comment on this issue. Don't hold your breath for a ruling. Did you read in the trade papers about the Paragon (a proper, not a common noun) cable renewal in St. Petersburg? It seems that some 20 days after the renewal franchise was granted the operator raised its rates by 5 The city officials are said to be outraged, but what else did they expect to happen for Pete's sake? A previous article comments on the GAO cable rate survey. Another part of this study turned up some more surprises. In the nearly two year study 34% of cable systems changed ownership. Some of us are concerned that the high debt service would lead to even higher rate increases. Not to worry, Paul Kagan, the statistical guru of the cable industry says that the average debt -to- cash flow was the same as in 1987 and even better than 1986. Something needs an explanation. Sometimes cablers can be very imaginative. A suggestion was made at a recent cable operator's These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communi- cations Consultants. A graduate of Halyard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West. For additional information about our services please contact Lon A. Hurd, Vice President, at (206) 935 -9040 or 1- 800 -222 -9697. FAX (206) 932 -4284 6 conference that the recorded messages played to customers placed on hold might include an explanation of how cable works and why it sometimes breaks down rather than have the suave voice recording, talking of all the programming she or he is missing because of service problems. Great idea, but can they condense this into only three hours of recording? Cable World, an excellent periodical of the cable industry, quotes a Georgia cabler as saying, "We have to teach local officials what our system is all about, the economics of it. If we have some problems at the state or at the federal level we can always come back to our local officials Welcome home. The Municipal Cable Regulator is published by 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants, a Division of 3 -H Management 0 Consultants, Inc., 4517 California ()venue Southwest, Suite B, Seattle, Washington 98116, (206) 935 -9040 or toll -free 1 -800- 222 -9697. This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. Encerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3- H Cable Communications Consultants. IHR 11 Cable Communications Consultants J� 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SOUTHWEST, SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98116 FAX (206) 932 -4284 0 (206) 935 -9040 1- 800 -222 -9697 TO: Craig Knutson, Port Angeles City Attorney Jeff Pomeranz, Port Angeles City Manager FROM: 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants /MHO DATE: August 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Report on FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation '‘M©rga\Wre i AUG 2 61991 CITY OF PORT ANGELES CITY CLERK Introduction The FCC has recently released their Report and Order pertaining to the definition of effective competition in the cable industry. While this latest version clarifies some ambiguities contained the their proposed rule making (i.e. elimination of "good actor" criteria) there still appears to be problems in the application of this regulation to the City of Port Angeles and Northland Cable Television. A copy of this Report and Order and referenced FCC rules are attached for your information. United States Stations The key issue is, of course, whether Port Angeles is served by less than six broadcast stations which are, in the Commission's words, "significantly viewed." The first test to be met is whether the station's broadcast area falls within a "Grade B contour A Grade B contour reflects the strength of the signal from a given transmitter and the area covered by that signal. Copies of these maps relative to nearby stations are attached. Four State of Washington stations whose signals appear to fall within a Grade B contour are, KOMO, Ch. 4; KING, Ch. 5; KVOS, Ch. 12; and KCPQ, Ch. 13. We have not yet received a map for KCTS, Ch. 9, although we have been told that it is outside of a Grade B contour. Of the four only one, KOMO, 1 August 23, 1991 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation appears to be at all marginal. It must be realized, however, that these maps do not take into consideration terrain features which might preclude a given signal from being actually received even if it places a Grade B strength signal in the area. Translators Translators are also treated the same as an initial broadcast signal. As you are aware, KIRO, Ch. 7, has a translator in the Port Angeles area. In our research we have also been informed by members of the engineering staff of KSTW, Ch. 11, that it will have a translator on line by October 15, 1991. Canadian Stations Another consideration is, of course, the Canadian stations received in your area. There does not seem to be any doubt that such stations are considered the same as would be a United States station. The FCC Regulations, Section 76.5 Definitions, (b) states "Any television broadcast station operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community and ant, television broadcast station licensed by a foreign government [emphasis added]. Of the four Canadian stations researched, two CBUT, Ch. 2, and CHAN, Ch. 8, fall into a Grade B contour pattern over Port Angeles. The other two CKVU -TV and CHEK, Ch. 6, throw a Grade A signal over your City. Thus it would appear that on the face of this examination Port Angeles would fail to qualify as located in an area where, under the FCC definition, effective competition does not exist. 2 August 23, 1991 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation Unduplicated Programine The FCC's ruling would exclude from the criteria any station that simultaneously duplicates more than 50 percent of another signal's weekly prime time schedule. One of our concerns was that a Canadian station would fall into this category by carrying, for instance, a U.S. Network programing. However, we have been informed by the Canadian government that television stations in that country are prohibited from carrying more than 50 percent of U.S. programing in prime time. It would therefor appear that Canadian stations will be fully counted in the effective competition measurement standards. Other Video Delivery Methods Some of the other considerations over and above those above that might affect the determination of effective competition are not pertinent to Port Angeles (or, as an aside, most anywhere else either). These are the percentage of the community served by satellite master antenna television (SMATV), multichannel multipoint distribution system (MMDS) and similar systems. Options of the City All of the above factors do not, of course, preclude the City of Port Angeles from challenging the accuracy of the Grade B contour to the viewpoint of questioning "significantly viewed (viz. FCC Rules 76.54). Such an engineering study to arrive at this determination is costly. Under the earlier proposed rules it was a "loser pays" situation, but now no matter what the result the City would incur the cost involved. 3 August 23, 1991 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation It is theoretically possible for the City to state that it is in an area without effective competition and serve appropriate notice on the cable operator. In that case, in our judgement, the franchisee would challenge such a statement and throw the burden of proof back upon the City. Effect of Rate Regulation It must be kept in mind that even if the City were to prevail and be granted the right to regulate rates its authority to do so would be severely limited. Only a small segment of cable rates, that of the lowest tier, are subject to City review. In Port Angeles this is the so- called "lifeline" tier which has extremely few subscribers. Even with all of this the practical results of annual or whatever rate review would be minimal. The FCC requires a fair return on investment formula to be considered by the franchising authority. This would allow the franchisee to, more often than not, still raise its rates as it sees fit given proper financial justification. Other Remedial Action On a broader front it does not appear to us that there is the likelihood of any Federal legislation forthcoming in the near future that would address further cable television rate regulation. There does not seem to be enough Congressional support for any such measure, particularly in view of a threatened Bush veto of any restrictive legislation. 4 August 23, 1991 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants FCC Ruling on Rate Regulation Conclusion This report is not intended to suggest that the City of Port Angeles is precluded from taking any action such as a significantly viewed review, or from negotiating some sort of a freeze with Northland Cable Television. We do suggest, however, that the City may wish to measure its application of resources required compared to the financial impact any such legal efforts would return to Port Angeles. Please feel free to let us know if you have additional questions or if we can be of further assistance in this matter. 5 August 23, 1991 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants KCPQ 1 Jima, WA 98499. 1499. IL Authorised power: 316-kw visual, ft. above ay. terrain, 708 -ft. above 1 1 53" 22" eterton. 1 eter C -band: Scientific- Atlanta, I X Antenna, M /A -Com, Scientific- Robert E. Kelly, gen. partner, 45.0%: I lly, ltd. partner, 5.00% See Kelly ial station. Left air Dec. 13, 1974. roved by FCC Sept. 9, 1975. Re- I 4, 1976. Sale to present owners eration as a commercial station Nov. 1 ocaates, P.C. i.1 C Port 0 %la/ Ab KKK WAMKIAKUY o 'Pore ownsend M tAOacorte A °Mount twi O °Centralia Chehalis SNONOMISN t U E r ett r P'1. Ter. ►Ewes PIERCE KING H 4 w0 •,J VANCOUVER ISLAND CtAL AM 11 GRAD E_ V I JUrERS/.r GRADE A GRATS B Hoquio h O,. geles ;Omani! We/ 1 KITSae Bremerton W Bella+ t C tnt S MASOs ()Renton oAuburn Shelton 0 Puyallup I Tacoma een Olacey Olympia COWLITZ O Kelso Astoria Nonovlew CLATSOP COLUMIIA St Helens INGTOA r Port Foes Grove( 0 II b Westminster as IN CLARK Bellingham SKAGIT Mount le lTnnwOo Kirkland Seattle SKAMANIA on UN wwITCOt KLICKITAT SCALE OF MILES Wenot KITT Yakimc Tot SO •100 rAMN Ktro BPCT- 800307KF Granted 8/15180 Cc) Amerman Map Corp.. 14244 TV Households Households Sh Net Weekly State Total Circulation County Households WASHINGTON 503 Over Grays Harbor 25,600 24,000 94 Island 19,300 18,900 98 Jefferson 7,800 7,500 96 King 559,600 540,000 96 Kitsap 64,500 62,900 98 Mason 14,200 13,800 97 Pierce 203,800 198,500 97 Skagit 27,900 26,800 96 Snohomish 147,600 143,600 97 Thurston 57,900 56,300 97 Whatcom 45,100 43,200 96 WASHINGTON KING 1 If" Ch 5 3 Dexter N., Seattle, WA 98109. (.,Seattle, WA 98109. WA 98124. -14 -2010. 3-1 MHz). Authorized power: 100-kw visual, e ay. terrain, 570-ft. above ground, 1000 -ft. 1; 37' 55" 20' 59" ay. terrain, 896-ft. above ground, 1290 -ft. 1 tI7 meter; Scientific-Atlanta. 5- meter; Hams, 1 MHz (No. 251), 700 -ft. e Group Ownership of Television Stations. KRSC TV. Sold to resent licensee August p se g 23, 30) 1 Hildreth. tti Edison Inc. •corporate legal, secretary. adcasting. el general manager. ger. lager. Nonoimti NCOUVER ISLAND CLALLAM CKA KD, G-N Net Weekly Circulation 50% Over Victoria Port A eles GRADE B eetersot, Hoquiom Aberdee PACO VI Ab4114 MALAY COWUT Astoria rore00 BPCT -732 Granted 1/14/53 11111'NKR Westminster tw vAnatortes Towers :Centralia Chehalis oKelso \�ongview TSO C A► COIUYW St. Helens wAa/l. a M+CTOIv Ttuwcro.c Fords o/ti c State County WASHINGTON Chelan Clallam Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap Kittitas West Lewis Mason Pierce San Juan Skagit Snohomish WI el Bellingham cdmond GRADE AV/ 11 AV/ O RII►Iand B emerton Seattle e eel c tit Ievu U V e t oRenton o Aub 0 Lewis SKINT eft lei. IMF MB wwITCOW KL ICIUTAT I� C Wenatchee o Ellensl Ydckna VAIUSIIA WI t. eal� OKAe100aa Toppentsh Sunny; SCALE OF MILES 50 00 American Map Corp„ 14234 20,600 21,700 25,600 19,300 7,800 559,600 64,500 2,000 22,200 14,200 203,800 4,000 27,900 147.600 19,700 20,800 24,000 18,900 .7,500' 540,000 62,900 1,900 21,100 13,800 198,500 3,800 26,800 143.600 97 95 96 97 Total TV Households Households Households 4 96 96 94 98 96 96 98 95 95 97 i I KOMO >eattle KOMO TV Ch. 4 1 1 sting Inc.. 100 4th Ave. N. Seattle. WA 98109. l ittle, WA 98109. TWX: 910 -444 -2251. iel No. 4 (66 -72 MHz). Authorized power: 100 -kw visual, 81 -ft above ay. terrain, 550 -ft. above ground, 1006 -ft. 47° 37' 55" el 122° 21' 09" 1126 -ft. above ay. terrain, 834 -ft. above ground, 1276 -ft. I 56 long. 122° 21' 11 BPCT- 870206KF l eo only. ns mit/receive 2 Scientific- Atlanta. 10 -meter C -band; An- ew. 56 -meter Ku -band: Andrew, 4.5 -meter C-band: I vantek, Scientific- Atlanta receivers. 1000 kHz. icing Inc. See Group Ownership of Television Stations. r1. 1953. Sale of 1/3 to Fisher's Blend Station (mak- )dore Gamble C. Howard Lane consummated in April 1516). isIon ayla Cooper Leader. nd, D. Ring Associates, P.C. chief executive officer. president, administration secretary. corporate affairs. ilt general manager. sident, director of marketing. Jonoimo :OUVER LAND %AN j 44. f fsuu. 'Pore ow send 0 Kelton GRADE A�% 1l .RITSA► Ku11•nd emerton O [_afI w• 4. I e eue•u� Mau up xt� Port A •eles Victoria JErr (Arum j GRA ►E B PACIFIC WA$I A UY COWLITZ Astoria New Westminster :Centralia Chehalis to Keiso Nionpview a.ATsor COL IMOLA St. Helens WALI• TKLAtr°oK P forest GroveO KOMO -Ty BPCT-407 Granted 6/10/53 in ow WI VI WNATCOY tAnacortes slurry °Mau non Net Weekly Slate Circulation County WASHINGTON 50% Over Chelan Clallam Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap Kittitas West Lewis Mason Bellingham M4 sNCIHO S LEWIS 0 Chili wack verett n ►e Ter. W A B Ito' WS 0Rento oAu .O ellA Hoquiam °coma AIERCE 9 Aberde Ilk °Lacey Olympia H Total Households 20,600 21,700 25,600, 19,300 7,800 559,600 64,500 2,000 22,200 14 9nn CPICLAPI Wenatchee ASTTITA:1 H Yakima 0 VACUA oRAMQoAN 0Ellensbu Toppenish Sunnysic RLICfc1TAT SCALE OF MILES 50 100 American Map Corp., 14244 TV Households 'Households y 19,700 96 20,800 96 24,000 94 18,900 98 7,500 96 540,000 96 62,900 98 1,900 95 21,100 95 17 onn n7 i 18225. t ft zed power: 229 -kw visual, above ground, 2550 -ft. 40" 48" Tier; Microdyne receivers. T up Ownership of Televi- proved by FCC June 5, s d associates approved 1 .48; 17:14). tatives Ltd. (Toronto- 1 KVOS pvr/ k oern o Z 0 Net Weekly Circulation CkA ,.10 o yt 0 A berde e n ..•e 0 0 Cem._ KVOS -TV BPCT-4002 Granted 12/4/67 uPe Nosh u- r0 NO lIvA r es r o Ai /li raci C Belling w, SCALE OF MILES 50 100 rdrio O a 1 4y Ir r 7, American Map Corp., 1424$ State Total TV Households County Households Households We WASHINGTON 50% Over Clallam 21,700 20,800 96 Whatcom 45,100 43,200 96 Between 25 -49% Island 19,300 18,900, 98 Jefferson 7,800 7,500 96 San Juan 4,000 3,800 95 Skagit 27,900 26,800 96 Snohomish 147,600 1d4 R nn APPS DIX B Part 76 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows: 1. Section 76.33 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 76.33 Standards for rate regulation. (a) A franchising authority is delegated the authority in the first instance to determine whether effective competition, as defined in this paragraph, exists in its community. When disputes arise regarding the franchising authority's initial determination, the presumption in a proceeding before the Commission will be that effective coepetitiondoes not exist. A franchising authority may regulate the rates of a cable system subject to the following conditions (cable systems that were subject to rate regulation prior to this date will remain subject to that regulation pending demonstration that they may not be regulated pursuant to this section): (1) Only basic cable service as defined in 76.5(ii) may be regulated; (2) Only cable systems that are not subject to effective competition may be rate regulated. A cable system will be determined to be subject to effective competition whenever any one of the following conditions are met: (i) 100 percent of the cable community receives service from at least six unduplicated broadcast television signals. It is not necessary that the same six signals provide service to the entire community. Signals shall be counted on the basis of their predicted Grade B contour (as defined in 73.683 of the rules) or if they are significantly viewed within the cable camnauzity, a.s defined in Section 76.54(b) and (c) of the rules. A signal that is significantly viewed shall be considered to be available to 100 percent of the cable community. A translator station is to be counted in the same manner as a full service station, except that its coverage area shall be based on its predicted protected contour as specified in Section 74.707 of the rules, provided that the translator is not used to retransmit a station already providing a Grade B contour or significantly viewed signal within the cable community. A low power television station is to be counted in the same manner as a full service station, except that its coverage area shall be based on its predicted protected contour as specified in Section 74.707 of the rules, provided it does not duplicate, as defined in the note below, another station counted in the same community. Note: For purposes of this section, "unduplicated broadcast television signal" is defined as one which does not simultaneously duplicate more than 50 percent of another signal's weekly prime time schedule pursuant to the definition of "prime time" provided in Section 76.5(n). 58 1 (ii) an independently owned, multichannel video delivery service is available to at least 50 percent of the homes passed by the incumbent cable system (i.e., the number of hares to which cable service is currently available whether or not a given household subscribes to cable service), and at least 10 percent of all hares passed by the alternative system within the inctmmbent cable system's service area actually subscribe to the service. Video delivery services that may be counted include a competing cable system, a multichannel, multipoint distribution system (!M)S), satellite master antenna television (SW TV), home satellite dishes (HSD), and direct broadcast satellite services (DES). It is not necessary that the same multichannel video delivery service be available throughout the area. Availability of a competing multichannel video delivery system will be determined by dividing the number of hares passed by an alternative delivery service by the number of hones passed by the incumbent cable system and expressed as a percentage. The penetration of alternative video delivery services will be calculated by combining the number of subscribers to all available services and expressing that number as a percentage`of the hares passed by both an alternative provider and incumbent cable system. Availability and penetration information for the competing multichannel video delivery services may be obtained from publicly available sources, from the operator directly, or from specifically undertaken audits. DBS will be considered to be available to the entire United States when any one such service becomes operational. Note: For purposes of this section, an M4)S service is considered to be "independently owned" if it meets the criteria contained in Section 21.912 of the rules. The following services will be considered to be "independently owned" if cable system ownership (including all parties under common control) does not exceed the criteria contained in Section 76.501 of the rules: SIATV, HSD, and DBS. (3) The Commission may grant waivers of the effective competition standard where the filing party submits one or more of the following showings, as appropriate: (i) the availability of full service broadcast signal(s) with engineering studies in accordance with 73.686 of the Commission's rules or by other showings that such Grade B level signals are (or are not) in fact available within the community. In performing the engineering studies noted above, cluster measurements, as provided in 73.686(b)(2) (viii), may be taken in place of =bile runs as provided in 73.686(b) (2)(v). The availability of translator(s) or low power television station(s) with engineering studies in accordance with 73.686 or other showings that show the protected contour of such signals, as defined in S 74.707. In conducting these engineering studies, cluster measurements as provided in S 73.686(b)(2)(viii) may be taken in place of the mobile runs as provided in 73.686(b) (2) (v) Any party intending to obtain a study must first inform the other party and provide it an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. (ii) the penetration of a competing cable system based on a survey of cable households passed and cable subscribers or more recent data; (iii) the availability or penetration of alternative video delivery 59 technologies specified in Section 76.33(a)(2)(ii) with additional information, or relevant information with respect to alternative video delivery technologies not included in Section 76.33(a)(2)(ii). The availability of HMS may be demonstrated by a showing of its protected contour as specified in Section 21.902(d) and (e) of the rules. (4) When a cable system not subject to effective competition becomes subject to effective competition due to any change in market conditions, the right of the local franchising authority to regulate the basic cable service rates of such cable system shall terminate immediately. A cable system, once determined to be subject to effective competition after the effective date of this section, shall not be subject to regulation for sixty days after any change in market conditions which would cause it to be determined not to be subject to effective competition. In instances where disputes arise between a cable system and a franchising authority regarding the changed circumstances, the status quo shall be maintained with respect to its regulatory status until the matter is resolved either by the parties or the Commission. However, if it is subsequently determined that the cable system does not face effective competition, the franchising authority may require the cable operator to rebate subscribers the excess basic service rates charged during the pendency of appeal with interest, determined on the basis of the existing rate applicable to federal income tax refunds and payments, to compensate for the excess revenues collected when the cable system properly may have been regulated. (5) Franchising authorities setting regulated basic cable service rates pursuant to this section shall allow a fair return on investment taking into account appropriate costs, including, but not necessarily limited to, capital costs, basic cable programming, customer service, labor, and ancillary costs attributable to obtaining and transmitting signals carried on the basic tier, increases in such costs, and the cost of any franchise imposed requirements not directly related to the provision of cable service, as well as a reasonable profit. Franchising authorities shall presume the reasonableness of documented increases in those basic cable cost factors itemized in this "fair return on investment" standard Franchising authorities shall retain the discretion to deny a proposed rate increase, but they shall be required to provide substantial written evidence supporting any decision to deny recovery of Lag fide, documented increases in these itemized costs of providing basic cable service. Appeal of a franchising authority's decision shall be made to the state court with jurisdiction over such matters. (b) In establishing any rate for the provision of basic cable service by cable systems subject to paragraph (a) of this section, the franchising authority shall: (1) Give formal notice to the public; (2) Provide an opportunity for interested parties to make their views known, at least through written submissions; and, (3) Make a formal statement (including summary explanation) when a decision on a rate matter is made, and issue a written decision. 60 2. Section 76.54 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 76.54 Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for special showings. (c) Notice of a survey to be made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall be served on all licensees or permittees of television broadcast stations within whose predicted Grade B contour the cable community or communities are located, in whole or in part, and on all other system community units, franchisees, and franchise applicants in the cable community or communities at least (30) days prior to the initial survey period. Furthermore, if a survey is undertaken pursuant to the provisions of Section 76.33(a) (2) (i) of the rules, notice shall also be served on the franchising authority. Such notice shall include the name of the survey organization and a description of the procedures to be used. Objections to survey organizations or procedures shall be served on the party sponsoring the survey within twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice. 61 76.14 (f) The television broadcast signals to be carried which previously have not been certified or registered. (Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317, 48 Stat. 1064 -1066, 1068, 1081 -1085, 1088, 1089, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317) [37 FR 3278, Feb. 12, 1972, as amended at 45 FR 52154, Aug. 6, 1980; 49 FR 27154, July 2, 1984; 50 FR 40855, Oct. 7, 1985] 76.14 Who may sign registration state- ments. (a) Registration statements shall be personally signed by the operator; by one of the partners, if the operator is a partnership; by an officer, if the op- erator is a corporation; by a member who is an officer, if the operator is an unincorporated association; or by any duly authorized employee of the oper- ator. (b) Registration statements may be signed by the operator's attorney in case of the operator's physical disabil- ity or of his absence from the United States. The attorney shall in that event separately set forth the reasons why the registration statement was not signed by the operator. In addi- tion, if any matter is stated on the basis of the attorney's belief only (rather than his knowledge), he shall separately set forth his reasons for be- lieving that such statements are true. [43 FR 49008, Oct. 20, 1978] 76.17 Public notice. The Commission will notice of the filing of statements. [43 FR 49008, Oct. 20, 1978] {1 76.29 Special temporary authority. (a) In circumstances requiring the temporary use of community units for operations not authorized by the Com- mission's rules, a cable television system may request special temporary authority to operate. The Commission may grant special temporary author- ity, upon a finding that the public in- terest would be served thereby, for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, and may extend such authority, upon a like finding, for one additional period, not to exceed ninety (90) days. 466 47 CFR Ch. 1 (10 -1 -88 Edition) (b) Requests for special temporary authority may be submitted informal- ly, by letter, and shall contain the f( lowing: (1) Name and address of the appli- cant cable system. (2) Community in which the commu- nity unit is located. (3) Type of operation to be conduct- ed. (4) Date of commencement of pro- posed operations. (5) Duration of time for which tem- porary authority is required. (6) All pertinent facts and consider- ations relied on to demonstrate the need for special temporary authority and to support a determination that a grant of such authority would serve the public interest. (7) A certificate of service on all in- terested parties. (c) A request for special temporary authority shall be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of com- mencement of the proposed oper- ations, or shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons for the delay in submitting such request. (d) A grant of special temporary au- thority may be rescinded by the Co mission at any time upon a finding facts which warrant such action. [39 FR 35166, Sept. 30, 1974; 42 FR 19346, Apr. 13, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 49008, Oct. 20, 1978] Subpart C- Federal- State /Local give public Regulatory Relationships registration 76,33 Standards for rate regulation. (a) Effective O Mier 29, 1988, a franchising authority may regulate the rates of a cable system subject to the following conditions (cable sys- tems that were subject to rate regula- tion prior to this date will remain sub- ject to that regulation pending demon station that they may not be regulated pursuant to this section): (1) Only basic cable service as de- fined in 76.5(ii) may be regulated; (2) Only cable systems that are not subject to effective competition may be rate regulated. A cable system will be determined to be subject to effec- tive competition whenever 100 percent of the cable community receives se"" Federal Communications Commission ice from at least three unduplicated C broadcast television signals. It is not cessary that the same three signals provide service to the entire communi- ty. Signals shall be counted on the basis of their predicted Grade B con- tour (as defined in 73.683 of the rules) or whether they are significant- ly viewed within the cable community, as defined in 76.54(b) and (c) of the rules. A signal that is significantly viewed shall be considered to be avail- able to 100 percent of the cable com- munity. A translator station author- ized to serve the cable community is to be counted in the same manner as a full service station, except that its cov- erage area shall be based on its pro- tected contour as specified in 74.707 of the rules, provided that the transla- tor is not used to retransmit a station already providing a Grade B contour or significantly viewed signal within the cable community. (3) The Commission may grant waiv- ers of this standard where the filing party demonstrates with engineering studies in accordance with 73.686 of the Commission's rules or by other showings what such Grade B level sig- \ls are (or are not) in fact available ithin the community. In performing the engineering studies noted above, cluster measurements, as provided in 73.686(b)(2)(viii), may be taken in place of mobile runs as provided in 73.686(b)(2)(v). Responsibility for the cost of engineering studies under- taken to refute the predicted availabil- ity of Grade B service will fall on the party that loses in the waiver proceed- ing. Any party intending to obtain this study must first inform the other party and provide it an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. Parties not taking this first step will be assigned full responsibility for the study costs. (4) A cable system, once determined to be subject to effective competition after the effective date of this section, shall not be subject to regulation for one year after any change in market conditions which would cause it be de- termined not be to subject to effective competition. (b) In establishing any rate for the' provision of basic cable service by --amble systems subject to paragraph (a) 467 76.51 of this section, the franchising author- ity shall: (1) Give formal notice to the public; (2) Provide an opportunity for inter- ested parties to make their views known, at least through written sub- missions; and, (3) Make a formal statement (includ- ing summary explanation) when a de- cision on a rate matter is made. (c) Any party may petition the Com- mission for relief of the provisions in this section in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in 76.7 for petitions for special relief. [53 FR 17051, May 13, 19887 Subpart D— Carriage of Television Broadcast Signals 76.51 Major television markets. For purposes of the cable television rules, the following is a list of the major television markets and their designated communities: (a) First 50 major television markets: (1) New York, New York- Linden Paterson- Newark, New Jersey. (2) Los Angeles -San Bernardino- Corona- Fontana, Calif. (3) Chicago, Ill. (4) Philadelphia, Pa.-Burlington, N.J. (5) Detroit, Mich. (6) Boston Cambridge- Worcester, Mass. (7) San Francisco- Oakland -San Jose, Calif. (8) Cleveland- Lorain Akron, Ohio. (9) Washington, D.C. (10) Pittsburgh, Pa. (11) St. Louis, Mo. (12) Dallas -Fort Worth, Tex. (13) Minneapolis -St. Paul, Minn. (14) Baltimore, Md. (15) Houston, Tex. (16) Indianapolis Bloomington, Ind. (17) Cincinnati, Ohio Newport, Ky. (18) Atlanta, Ga. (19) Hartford -New Haven -New Britain Waterbury, Conn. (20) Seattle- Tacoma, Wash. (21) Miami, Fla. (22) Kansas City, Mo. (23) Milwaukee, Wis. (24) Buffalo, N.Y. (25) Sacramento Stockton- Modesto, Calif. (26) Memphis, Tenn. (27) Columbus, Ohio. (28) Tampa -St. Petersburg, Fla. (29) Portland, Oreg. (30) Nashville, Tenn. (31) New Orleans, La. (32) Denver, Colo. 1 1 76.5 programming, or other programming service; and, subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selec- tion of such video programming or other programming service. For the purposes of this definition, "video pro- gramming" is programming provided by, or generally considered compara- ble to programming provided by, a tel- evision broadcast station; and, "other programming service" is information that a cable operator makes available to all subscribers generally. (ii) Basic cable service. For purposes ofl egulating the rates for the provi- sion of basic cable service in circum- stances in which a cable system is not subject to effective competition, basic cable service is any service tier which includes the retransmission of any broadcast television signals in the fol- lowing categories: (1) For communities located outside all major and smaller television mar- kets (as defined in this section): (i) Television broadcast stations within whose Grade B contours the community of the community unit is located, in whole or in part; (ii) Television translator stations with 100 watts or higher power serving the community of the community unit and for community units that com- mence operations or expand channel capacity after March 30, 1972, non- commercial educational translator sta- tions with 5 watts or higher power serving the community of the commu- nity unit; (iii) Noncommercial educational tele- vision broadcast stations within whose specified zone the community of the community unit is located, in whole or in part; (iv) Commercial television broadcast stations that are significantly viewed in the community of the community unit. See 76.54. (2) For communities in smaller tele- vision markets (as defined in this sec- tion): (i) Television broadcast stations within whose specified zone the com- munity of the community unit is locat- ed, in whole or in part; (ii) Noncommercial educational tele- vision broadcast stations within whose Grade B contours the community of 462 47 CFR Ch. 1 (10 -1 -88 Edition) the community unit is located, in whole or in part; (iii) Commercial television broadcast stations licensed to communities in other smaller television markets, within whose Grade B contours the community of the community unit is located, in whole or in part; (iv) Television broadcast stations li- censed to other communities which are generally considered to be part of the same smaller television market (Example: Burlington, Vt.-Platts- burgh, N.Y., television market); (v) Television translator stations with 100 watts or higher power serving the community of the community unit and, for community units that com- mence operations or expand channel capacity after March 30, 1972, non- commercial educational translator sta- tions with 5 watts or higher power serving the community of the commu- nity unit; (vi) Commercial television broadcast stations that are significantly viewed in the community unit. See 76.54. (3) For communities in major televi- sion markets (as defined in this sec- tion) and in communities located both wholly or partially within both majo' and smaller television markets: (i) Television broadcast stations within whose specified zone the com- munity of the community unit is locat- ed, in whole or in part; (ii) Noncommercial educational tele- vision broadcast stations within whose Grade B contours the community of the community unit is located, in whole or in part; (iii) Television translator stations with 100 watts or higher power serving the community of the community unit and, for those community units that commence operations or expand chan- nel capacity after March 30, 1972, non- commercial educational translator sta- tions with 5 watts or higher power serving the community of the commu- nity unit; (iv) Television broadcast stations li- censed to other designated communi- ties of the same major television market (Example: Cincinnati, Ohio Newport, Ky., television market); (v) Commercial television broadcast stations that are significantly viewed 73.683 (Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303)) [28 FR 13660, Dec. 14, 1963] EDITORIAL NOTE: For FEDERAL REGISTER ci- tations affecting 73.682, see the List of CFR Sections Affected appearing in the Finding Aids section of this volume. 1)73.683 Field strength contours. (a) In the authorization of TV sta- tions, two field strength contours are considered. These are specified as Grade A and Grade B and indicate the approximate extent of coverage over average terrain in the absence of inter- ference from other television stations. Under actual conditions, the true cov- erage may vary greatly from these es- timates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be differ- ent from the average terrain on which the field strength charts were based. The required field strength, F (50,50), in dB above one micro -volt per meter (dBu) for the Grade A and Grade B contours are as follows: Grade A Grade B (dBu) (dBu) Channels 2-6 68 47 Channels 7 -13 71 56 Channels 14-69 74 64 (b) It should be realized that the F (50,50) curves when used for Channels 14 -69 are not based on measured data at distances beyond about 48.3 kilome- ters (30 miles). Theory would indicate that the field strengths for Channels 14 -69 should decrease more rapidly with distance beyond the horizon than for Channels 2 -6, and modification of the curves for Channels 14 -69 may be expected as a result of measurements to be made at a later date. For these reasons, the curves should be used with appreciation of their limitations in estimating levels of field strength. Further, the actual extent of service will usually be less than indicated by these estimates due to interference from other stations. Because of these factors, the predicted field strength contours give no assurance of service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances indicat- ed. In licensing proceedings these vari- ations will not be considered. 47 CFR Ch. I (10 1 88 Edition) (c) The field strength contours will be considered for the following pur- poses only: (1) In the estimation of coverage Ai suiting from the selection of a particu- lar transmitter site by an applicant for a TV station. (2) In connection with problems of coverage arising out of application of 73.3555. (3) In determining compliance with 73.685(a) concerning the minimum field strength to be provided over the principal community to be served. [44 FR 36039, June 20, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 35990, Aug. 18, 1982; 50 FR 23699, June 5, 1985; 50 FR 32416, Aug. 12, 1985] 73:684 Prediction of coverage. (a) All predictions of coverage made pursuant to this section shall be made without regard to interference and shall be made only on the basis of esti- mated field strengths. The peak power of the visual signal is used in making predictions of coverage. (b) Predictions of coverage shall be made only for the same purposes as relate to the use of field strength con- tours as specified in 73.683(c). (c) In predicting the distance to t field strength contours, the F (50, field strength charts (Figures 9 and 10 of 73.699) shall be used. If the 50% field strength is defined as that value exceeded for 50% of the time, these F (50,50) charts give the estimated 50% field strengths exceeded at 50% of the locations in dB above 1 uV /m. The charts are based on an effective power of 1 kW radiated form a half -wave dipole in free space, which produces an unattenuated field strength at 1.61 kilometers (1 mile) of about 103 dB above 1 uV /m. To use the charts to predict the distance to a given con- tour, the following procedure is used: Convert the effective radiated power in kilowatts for the appropriate azi- muth into decibel value referenced to 1 kW (dBu). If necessary, convert the selected contour to the decibel value (dBu) above 1 microvolt per meter (1 uV /m). Subtract the power value in dBk from the contour value in dBu. Note that for power less than 1 kW, the difference value will be greater than the contour value because the 194 c t c s; a rl u CI 0] a' a fc A A lin an sti mi m( de tai im oti co) to pri pal 40 1 t t t Federal Communications Commission 76.54 Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for special showings. (a) Signals that are significantly viewed in a county (and thus are deemed to be significantly viewed within all communities within the county) are those that are listed in Ap- pendix A of the memorandum opinion and order on reconsideration of the Cable Television Report and Order (Docket 18397 et al.), FCC 72 -530. (b) Significant viewing in a cable tel- evision community for signals not shown as significantly viewed under paragraph (a) or (d) of this section may be demonstrated by an independ- ent professional audience survey of non -cable television homes that covers at least two weekly periods separated by at least thirty (30) days but no more than one of which shall be a week between the months of April and September. If two surveys are taken, they shall include samples sufficient to assure that the combined surveys result in an average figure at least one standard error above the required viewing level. If surveys are taken for more than 2- weekly periods in any 12 "I onths, all such surveys must result an average figure at least one stand- ard error above the required viewing level. If a cable television system serves more than one community, a single survey may be taken, provided that the sample includes non -cable tel- evision homes from each community that are proportional to the popula- tion. ''(c) Notice of a survey to be made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this sec- tion shall be served on all licensees of permittees of television broadcast sta- tions within whose predicted Grade B contour the cable community or com- munities are located, in whole or in part, and on all other system commu- nity units, franchisees, and franchise applicants in the cable community or communities at least thirty (30) days prior to the initial survey period. Fur- thermore, if a survey is undertaken pursuant to the provisions of 76.33(a)(2) of the rules, notice shall also be served on the franchising au- thority. Such notice shall include the name of the survey organization and a 1 escription of the procedures to be c 473 76.55 used. Objections to survey organiza- tions or procedures shall be served on the party sponsoring the survey within twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice. (d) Signals of television broadcast stations not encompassed by the sur- veys (for the periods May 1970, No- vember 1970 and February /March 1971) used in establishing Appendix B of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of Cable Television Report and Order, FCC 72- 530, 36 FCC 2d 326 (1972), may be demonstrated as significantly viewed on a county -wide basis by independent professional audience surveys which cover three separate, consecutive four week periods and are otherwise compa- rable to the surveys used in compiling the above referenced Appendix B: Pro- vided, however, That such demonstra- tion shall be based upon audience survey data for the first three years of the subject station's broadcast oper- ations. [37 FR 3278, Feb. 12, 1972, as amended at 37 FR 13866, July 14, 1972; 40 FR 48930, Oct. 20, 1975; 41 FR 32429, Aug. 3, 1976; 42 FR 19346, Apr. 13, 1977; 53 FR 17051, May 13, 19881 76.55 Qualified television station; method to be followed for showings. A commercial television station shall demonstrate that, for the previous survey season, it meets the viewing standard specified in 76.5(d)(1)(ii) on the basis of an independent profes- sional survey of noncable homes con- ducted according to the following pro- visions: (a) If the station has been operation- al, as defined in 76.5(d)(1)(ii), for at least one complete television survey season, the survey shall cover four separate, consecutive four -week peri- ods, including one in each of the four quarters of the survey season (i.e., April -June, July- September, October December, January-March), and be conducted pursuant to the methodolo- gy used to compile Appendix B of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of Cable Television Report and Order, FCC 72 530, 36 FCC 2d 326 (1972). 74.707 offset from the standard carrier fre- quencies of the requested channel. If the offset designation is not different from that of the station being protect- ed, the —45 dB ratio must be used. (ii) A description of the means by which the low power TV, TV transla- tor, or TV booster station will be main- tained within the tolerances specified in 74.761 for offset operation. (2) 6 dB when the protected TV broadcast station operates on a VHF channel that is one channel above the requested channel. (3) 12 dB when the protected TV broadcast station operates on a VHF channel that is one channel below the requested channel. (4) 15 dB when the protected TV broadcast station operates on a UHF channel that is one channel above or below the requested channel. (5) 23 dB when the protected TV broadcast station operates on a UHF channel that is fourteen channels below the requested channel. (6) 6 dB when the protected TV broadcast station operates a UHF channel that is fifteen channels below the requested channel. (47 FR 21497, May 18, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 21487, May 12, 1983; 52 FR 31403, Aug. 20, 1987] §74.7X7 Low power TV and TV translator station protection. (a)(1) A low power TV or TV transla- tor will be protected from interference from other low power TV or TV trans- lator stations, or TV booster stations within the following predicted con- tours: (i) 62 dBu for stations on Channels 2 through 6; (ii) 68 dBu for stations on Channels 7 through 13; and (iii) 74 dBu for stations on Channels 14 through 69. Existing licensees and permittees that did not furnish sufficient data re- quired to calculate the above contours by April 15, 1983 are assigned protect- ed contours having the following radii: Up to 0.001 kW VHF /UHF -1 mile (1.6 km) from transmitter site Up to 0.01 kW VHF; up to 0.1 k/W UHF -2 miles (3.2 km) from transmitter site Up to 0.1 kW VHF; up to 1 kW UHF -4 miles (6.4 km) from transmitter site 408 47 CFR Ch. 1 (10 -1 -88 Edition) New applicants must submit the re- quired information; they cannot red- on this table. (2) The low power TV or TV transla- tor station protected contour is calcu- lated from the authorized effective ra- diated power and antenna height above average terrain, using Figure 9, 10, or 10b of 73.699 (F(50,50) charts) of Part 73 of this chapter. (b)(1) An application to construct a new low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station or change the fa- cilities of an existing station will not be accepted if it specifies a site which is within the protected contour of a co- channel or first adjacent channel low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station, except that a TV booster station may be located within the protected contour of its co- channel primary station. (2) Due to the frequency spacing which exists between TV Channels 4 and 5, between Channels 6 and 7, and between Channels 13 and 14, adjacent channel protection standards shall not be applicable to these pairs of chan- nels. (See 73.603(a) of Part 73 of this chapter.) (3) A UHF low power TV, TV tram lator, or TV booster constructid permit application will not be accepted if it specifies a site within the UHF low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station's protected contour and proposes operation on a channel either 7 channels below or 14 or 15 channels above the channel in use by the low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station. (c) The low power TV, TV transla- tor, or TV booster construction permit application field strength is calculated from the proposed effective radiated power (ERP) and the antenna above average terrain (HAAT) in pertinent directions. (1) For co- channel protection, the field strength is calculated using Figure 9a, 10a, or 10c of 73.699 (F(50,10) charts) of Part 73 of this chapter. (2) For low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster applications that do not specify the same channel as the low power TV, TV translator, or TV boost- er station to be protected, the field strength is calculated using Figure,'" I c Federal Communications Commission 10, or 10b of 73.699 (F(50,50) charts) Part 73 of this chapter. t d) A low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station application will not be accepted if the ratio in dB of its field strength to that of the author- ized low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station at its protected contour fails to meet the following: (1) —45 dB for co- channel operations without offset carrier frequency oper- ation or —28 dB for offset carrier fre- quency operation. An application re- questing offset carrier frequency oper- ation must include the following: (i) A requested offset designation (zero, plus, or minus) identifying the proposed direction of the 10 kHz offset from the standard carrier fre- quencies of the requested channel. If the offset designation is not different from that of the station being protect- ed, or if the station being protected is not maintaining its frequencies within the tolerance specified in 74.761 for offset operation, the —45 dB ratio must be used. (ii) A description of the means by which the low power TV, TV transla- t' r, or TV booster station's frequen- s will be maintained within the tol- .,:ances specified in 74.761 for offset operation. (2) 6 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- erates on a VHF channel that is one channel above the requested channel. (3) 12 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- erates on a VHF channel that is one channel below the requested channel. (4) 15 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- erates on a UHF channel that is one channel above or below the requested channel. (5) 0 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- erates on a UHF channel that is seven channels above the requested channel. (6) 23 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- erates on a UHF channel that is four- teen channels below the requested channel. (7) 6 dB when the protected low power TV or TV translator station op- des on a UHF channel that is fif- 409 74.709 teen channels below the requested channel. [47 FR 21498, May 18, 1982, as amended at 47 FR 35990, Aug. 18, 1982; 48 FR 21487, May 12, 1983; 52 FR 31403, Aug. 20, 1987] 74.709 Land mobile station protection. (a) Stations in the Land Mobile Radio Service, using the following channels in the indicated cities will be protected from interference caused by low power TV or TV translator sta- tions, and low power TV and TV trans- lator stations must accept any inter- ference from stations in the land mobile service operating on the follow- ing channels: City Chan- nels Coordinates Latitude Longitude Boston, MA 14, 16 42 °21'24" 071 °03'24" Chicago, IL 14, 15 41 °52'28" 087 °38'22" Cleveland, OH 14. 15 41 °29'51" 081'41'50" Dallas, TX 16 32 °47'09" 096 °47'37" Detroit, MI 15, 16 42 °19'48" 083'02'57" Houston, TX 17 29'45'26" 095 °21'37" Los Angeles, CA 14, 20 34 °03'15" 118'14'28" Miami, FL 14 25 °46'37" 080 °11'32" New York, NY 14, 15 40 °45'06" 073 °59'39" Philadelphia, PA 19, 20 39 °56'58" 075'09'21" Pittsburgh, PA 14, 18 40 °26'19" 080 °00'00" San Francisco, CA 16, 17 37 °46'39" 122 °24'40" Washington, DC 17, 18 38 °53'51" 077 °00'33" (b) The protected contours for the land mobile radio service are 130 kilo- meters from the above coordinates, except where limited by the following: (1) If the land mobile channel is the same as the channel in the following list, the land mobile protected contour excludes the area within 145 kilome- ters of the corresponding coordinates from list below. Except if the land mobile channel is 15 in New York or Cleveland or 16 in Detroit, the land mobile protected contour excludes the area within 95 kilometers of the corre- sponding coordinates from the list below. (2) If the land mobile channel is one channel above or below the channel in the following list, the land mobile pro- tected contour excludes the area within 95 kilometers of the corre- sponding coordinates from the list below. Federal Communications Commission using the methodology specified in 76.5 of this part, that the station no anger meets the viewing standard. (2) Any noncommerical educational television station's translator with 5 watts or higher power serving the cable community. (3) A full service station or transla- tor qualifies as a noncommerial educa- tional station for purposes of these rules if it is licensed to a channel re- served for noncommerical educational use pursuant to 73.606 of this chap- ter. The Commission also will consider whether stations operating on nonre- served channels qualify as noncom merical educational stations on a case by -case basis. (e) Grade A and Grade B contours. The field intensity contours defined in 73.683(a) of this chapter. (f Specified zone of a television broadcast station. The area extending 35 air miles from the reference point in the community to which that sta- tion is licensed or authorized by the Commission. A list of reference points is contained in 76.53. A television broadcast station that is authorized but not operating has a specified zone A at terminates eighteen (18) months ter the initial grant of its construc- tion permit. (g) Major television market. The specified zone of a commercial televi- sion station licensed to a community listed in 76.51, or a combination of such specified zones where more than one community is listed. (h) Designated community in a major television market. A community listed in 76.51. (i) Smaller television market. The specified zone of a commercial televi- sion station licensed to a community that is not listed in 76.51. (j) Substantially duplicates. Regu- larly duplicates the network program- ming of one or more stations in a week during the hours of 6 to 11 p.m., local time, for a total of 14 or more hours. (k) Significantly viewed. Viewed in s-- other than cable television households as follows: (1) For a full or partial net- work station —a share of viewing hours of at least 3 percent (total week hours), and a net weekly circulation of at least 25 percent; and (2) for an inde- vndent station —a share of viewing 459 76.5 hours of at least 2 percent (total week hours), and a net weekly circulation of at least 5 percent. See 76.54. NOTE: As used in this paragraph, "share of viewing hours" means the total hours that noncable television households viewed the subject station during the week, expressed as a percentage of the total hours these households viewed all stations during the period, and "net weekly circulation" means the number of noncable television house- holds that viewed the station for 5 minutes or more during the entire week, expressed as a percentage of the total noncable televi- sion households in the survey area. (1) Full network station. A commer- cial television broadcast station that generally carries in weekly prime time hours 85 percent of the hours of pro- graming offered by one of the three major national television networks with which it has a primary affiliation (i.e., right of first refusal or first call). (m) Partial network station. A com- mercial television broadcast station that generally carries in prime time more than 10 hours of programing per week offered by the three major na- tional television networks, but less than the amount specified in para- graph (1) of this section. (n) Independent station. A commer- cial television broadcast station that generally carries in prime time not more than 10 hours of programing per week offered by the three major na- tional television networks. (o) A network program is any pro- gram delivered simultaneously to more than one broadcast station regional or national, commercial or noncommer- cial. Pjpie time. The 5 -hour period f rom 6 to 11 p.m., local time, except that in the central time zone the rele- vant period shall be between the hours of 5 and 10 p.m., and in the mountain time zone each station shall elect whether the period shall be 6 to 11 p.m. or 5 to 10 p.m. NOTE: Unless the Commission is notified to the contrary, a station in the mountain time zone shall be presumed to have elected the 6 to 11 p.m. period. (q) Cablecasting. Programing (exclu- sive of broadcast signals) carried on a cable television system. See para- graphs (aa), (bb), and (cc) (Classes II, 73.686 the radiating system of the AM broad- cast station must be filed by the li- censee thereof. A formal application (FCC Form 301, or FCC Form 340 for a noncommercial educational station) will be required if the proposal in- volves substantial change in the physi- cal height or radiation characteristics of the AM broadcast antennas; other- wise an informal application will be ac- ceptable. (In case of doubt, an infor- mal application (letter) together with complete engineering data should be submitted.) An application may be re- quired for other classes of stations when the tower is to be used in con- nection with a television station. (2) When the proposed TV antenna is to be mounted on a tower in the vi- cinity of an AM station directional an- tenna system and it appears that the operation of the directional antenna system may be affected, an engineer- ing study must be filed with the TV application concerning the effect of the TV antenna on the AM directional radiation pattern. Field measurements of the AM stations may be required prior to and following construction of the TV station antenna, and readjust- ments made as necessary. (Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303)) 128 FR 13660, Dec. 14, 1963, as amended at 35 FR 5693, Apr. 8, 1970; 40 FR 25461, June 16, 1975; 43 FR 53740, Nov. 17, 1978; 44 FR 22740, Apr. 17, 1979; 45 FR 26065, Apr. 17, 1980; 47 FR 35990, Aug. 18, 1982; 48 FR 21486, May 12, 1983; 50 FR 23701, June 5, 1985) A73.686 Field strength measurements. (a) Except as provided for in 73.612, television broadcast stations shall not be protected from any type of interference or propagation effect. Persons desiring to submit testimony, evidence or data to the Commission for the purpose of showing that the technical standards contained in this subpart do not properly reflect the levels of any given type of interference or propagation effect may do so only in appropriate rulemaking proceedings concerning the amendment of such technical standards. Persons making field strength measurements for formal submission to the Commission in rulemaking proceedings, or making 200 47 CFR Ch. 1 (10 -1-88 Edition) such measurements upon the request of the Commission, shall follow the procedure for making and reportin such measurements outlined in para- graph (b) of this section. In instances where a showing of the measured level of a signal prevailing over a specific community is appropriate, the proce- dure for making and reporting field strength measurements for this pur- pose is set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Collection of field strength data for propagation analysis. (1) Preparation for measurements. (I) On large scale topographic maps, eight or more radials are drawn from the transmitter location to the maxi- mum distance at which measurements are to be made, with the angles includ- ed between adjacent radials of ap- proximately equal size. Radials should be oriented so as to traverse represent- ative types of terrain. The specific number of radials and their orienta- tion should be such as to accomplish this objective. (ii) At a point exactly 16.1 kilome- ters (10 miles) from the transmitter, each radial is marked, and at greater distances at successive 3.2 kilometer mile) intervals. Where measurement are to be conducted at UHF, or over extremely rugged terrain, shorter in- tervals may be employed, but all such intervals shall be of equal length. Ac- cessible roads intersecting each radial as nearly as possible at each 3.2 kilo- meter (2 mile) marker are selected. These intersections are the points on the radial at which measurements are to be made, and are referred to subse- quently as measuring locations. The elevation of each measuring location should approach the elevation at the corresponding 3.2 kilometer (2 mile) marker as nearly as possible. (2) Measurement procedure. The field strength of the visual carrier shall be measured with a voltmeter ca- pable of indicating accurately the peak amplitude of the synchronizing signal. All measurements shall be made utilizing a receiving antenna de- signed for reception of the horizontal- ly polarized signal component, elevat- ed 9.1 meters (30 feet) above the road- bed. At each measuring location, th Federal Communications Commission following procedure shall be em- loyed. li (i) The instrument calibration is Necked. (ii) The antenna is elevated to a height of 30 feet. (iii) The receiving antenna is rotated to determine if the strongest signal is arriving from the direction of the transmitter. (iv) The antenna is oriented so that the sector of its response pattern over which maximum gain is realized is in the direction of the transmitter. (v) A mobile run of at least 30.5 meters (100 feet) is made, which is centered on the intersection of the radial and the road, and the measured field strength is continuously recorded on a chart recorder over the length of the run. (vi) The actual measuring location is marked exactly on the topographic map, and a written record, keyed to the specific location, is made of all fac- tors which may affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of vegetation, buildings, obsta- cles, weather, and other local features. (vii) If, during the test conducted as escribed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of is section, the strongest signal is ound to come from a direction other than from the transmitter, after the mobile run prescribed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section is concluded, additional measurements shall be made in a "cluster" of at least five fixed points. At each such point, the field strengths with the antenna ori- ented toward the transmitter, and with the antenna oriented so as to re- ceive the strongest field, are measured and recorded. Generally, all points should be within 61.0 meters (200 feet) of the center point of the mobile run. (viii) If overhead obstacles preclude a mobile run of at leat 30.5 meters (100 feet), a "cluster" of five spot measurements may be made in lieu of this run. The first measurement in the cluster is identified. Generally, the lo- cations for other measurements shall be within 61.0 meters (200 feet) of the location of the first. (3) Method of reporting measure- ments. A report of measurements to the Commission shall be submitted in ffidavit form, in triplicate, and i ii 201 73.686 should contain the following informa- tion: (i) Tables of field strength measure- ments, which, for each measuring loca- tion, set forth the following data: (A) Distance from the transmitting antenna. (B) Ground elevation at measuring location. (C) Date, time of day, and weather. (D) Median field in dBu for 0 dBk, for mobile run or for cluster, as well as maximum and minimum measured field strengths. (E) Notes describing each measuring location. (ii) U.S. Geological Survey topo- graphic maps, on which is shown the exact location at which each measure- ment was made. The original plots shall be made on maps of the largest available scale. Copies may be reduced in size for convenient submission to the Commission, but not to the extent that important detail is lost. The origi- nal maps shall be made available, if re- quested. If a large number of maps is involved, an index map should be sub- mitted. (iii) All information necessary to de- termine the pertinent characteristics of the transmitting installation, in- cluding frequency, geographical co- ordinates of antenna site, rated and actual power output of transmitter, measured transmission line loss, an- tenna power gain, height of antenna above ground, above mean sea level, and above average terrain. The effec- tive radiated power should be comput- ed, and horizontal and vertical plane patterns of the transmitting antenna should be submitted. (iv) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey, which, for each instrument, specifies its manufacturer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of its most recent calibration by the manu- facturer, or by a laboratory. Complete details of any instrument not of stand- ard manufacture shall be submitted. (v) A detailed description of the cali- bration of the measuring equipment, including field strength meters, meas- uring antenna, and connecting cable. (vi) Terrain profiles in each direc- tion in which measurements were made, drawn on curved earth paper 73.686 for equivalent 4/3 earth radius, of the largest available scale. (c) Collection of field strength data to determine television service in spe- cific communities. (1) Preparation for measurement. (i) The population (P) of the community, and its suburbs, if any, is determined by reference to an appropriate source, e.g., the 19 70 U.S. Census tables of population of cities and urbanized areas. (ii) The number of locations at which measurements are to be made shall be at least 15, and shall be ap- proximately equal to 0.1 (P) 1, if this product is a number greater than 15. (iii) A rectangular grid, of such size and shape as to encompass the bound- aries of the community is drawn on an accurate map of the community. The number of line intersections on the grid included within the boundaries of the community shall be at least equal to the required number of measuring locations. The position of each inter- section on the community map deter- mines the location at which a meas- urement shall be made. (2) Measurement procedure. The field strength of the visual carrier shall be measured, with a voltmeter capable of indicating accurately the peak amplitude of the synchronizing signal. All measurements shall be made utilizing a receiving antenna de- signed for reception of the horizontal- ly polarized signal component, elevat- ed 9.1 meter (30 feet) above street level. (i) Each measuring location shall be chosen as close as feasible to a point indicated on the map, as previously prepared, and at as nearly the same elevation as that point as possible. (ii) At each measuring location, after equipment calibration and elevation of the antenna, a check is made to deter- mine whether the strongest signal ar- rives from a direction other than from the transmitter. (iii) At 20 percent or more of the measuring locations, mobile runs, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be made, with no less than three such mobile runs in any case. The points at which mobile measurements are made shall be well 202 47 CFR Ch. I (10 -148 Edition) separated. Spot measurements may be made at other measuring points. (iv) Each actual measuring locati is marked exactly on the map of th community, and suitably keyed. A written record shall be maintained, de- scribing, for each location, factors which may affect the recorded field, such as the approximate time of meas- urement, weather, topography, over- head wiring, heights and types of vegetation, buildings and other struc- tures. The orientation, with respect to the measuring location shall be indi- cated of objects of such shape and size as to be capable of causing shadows or reflections. If the strongest signal re- ceived was found to arrive from a di- rection other than that of the trans- mitter, this fact shall be recorded. (3) Method of reporting measure- ments. A report of measurements to the Commission shall be submitted in affidavit form, in triplicate, and should contain the following informa- tion: (i) A map of the community showing each actual measuring location, specif- ically identifying the points at which mobile runs were made. (ii) A table keyed to the above ma showing the field strength at ea measuring point, reduced to dBu fo the actual effective radiated power of the station. Weather, date, and time of each measurement shall be indicated. (iii) Notes describing each measuring location. (iv) A topographic map of the larg- est available scale on which are marked the community and the trans- mitter site of the station whose signals have been measured, which includes all areas on or near the direct path of signal propagation. (v) Computations of the mean and standard deviation of all measured field strengths, or a graph on which the distribution of measured field strength values is plotted. (vi) A list of calibrated equipment used for the measurements, which for each instrument, specifies its manufac- turer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of its most recent calibration by the manufactur- er, or by a laboratory. Complete de- tails of any instrument not of stand- ard manufacture shall be submitted. )e Or in of ing e MS- s s ;i of Ad d zich lent t c- d nos t e- a d- d. Federal Communications Commission (vii) A detailed description of the r ocedure employed in the calibration the measuring equipment, including eld strength meters measuring an- tenna, and connecting cable. [40 FR 27683, July 1, 1975, as amended at 50 FR 23701, June 5, 1985] 73.687 Transmission system require- ments. (a) Visual transmitter. (1) The field strength or voltage of the lower side band, as radiated or dissipated and measured as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, shall not be greater than —20 dB for a modulating frequency of 1.25 MHz or greater and in addition, for color, shall not be greater than —42 dB for a modulating frequency of 3.579545 MHz (the color subcarrier frequency). For both mon- ochrome and color, the field strength or voltage of the upper sideband as ra- diated or dissipated and measured as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall not be greater than —20 dB for a modulating frequency of 4.75 MHz or greater. For stations operating on Channels 15 -69 and employing a transmitter delivering maximum peak lik ual power output of 1 kW or less, e field strength or voltage of the upper and lower sidebands, as radiated or dissipated and measured as de- scribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this sec- tion, shall depart from the visual am- plitude characteristic (Figure 5a of 73.699) by no more than the follow- ing amounts: —2 dB at 0.5 MHz below visual carrier fre- quency; —2 dB at 0.5 MHz above quency; —2 dB at 1.25 MHz above quency; —3 dB at 2.0 MHz above quency; —6 dB at 3.0 MHz above quency; —12 dB at 3.5 MHz above quency; —8 dB at 3.58 MHz above visual carrier fre- quency (for color transmission only). The field strength or voltage of the upper and lower sidebands, as radiated or dissipated and measured as de- scribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this sec- tion, shall not exceed a level of —20 for a modulating frequency of 4.75 visual carrier fre- visual carrier fre- visual carrier fre- visual carrier fre- visual carrier fre- 203 73.687 MHz or greater. If interference to the reception of other stations is caused by out -of- channel lower sideband emis- sion, the technical requirements appli- cable to stations operating on Chan- nels 2 -13 shall be met. (2) The attenuation characteristics of a visual transmitter shall be meas- ured by application of a modulating signal to the transmitter input termi- nals in place of the normal composite television video signal. The signal ap- plied shall be a composite signal com- posed of a synchronizing signal to es- tablish peak output voltage plus a variable frequency sine wave voltage occupying the interval between syn- chronizing pulses. (The "synchroniz- ing signal" referred to in this section means either a standard synchronizing wave form or any pulse that will prop- erly set the peak.) The axis of the sine wave in the composite signal observed in the output monitor shall be main- tained at an amplitude 0.5 of the volt- age at synchronizing peaks. The am- plitude of the sine wave input shall be held at a constant value. This constant value should be such that at no modu- lating frequency does the maximum excursion of the sine wave, observed in the composite output signal monitor, exceed the value 0.75 of peak output voltage. The amplitude of the 200 kHz sideband shall be measured and desig- nated zero dB as a basis for compari- son. The modulation signal frequency shall then be varied over the desired range and the field strength or signal voltage of the corresponding sidebands measured. As an alternate method of measuring, in those cases in which the automatic d -c insertion can be re- placed by manual control, the above characteristic may be taken by the use of a video sweep generator and with- out the use of pedestal synchronizing pulses. The d -c level shall be set for midcharacteristic operation. (3) A sine wave, introduced at those terminals of the transmitter which are normally fed the composite color pic- ture signal, shall produce a radiated signal having an envelope delay, rela- tive to the average envelope delay be- tween 0.05 and 0.20 MHz, of zero mi- croseconds up to a frequency of 3.0 MHz; and then linearly decreasing to 4.18 MHz so as to be equal to —0.17 Cable Communications Consultants 1994 -1995 ANNUAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE Cnv o PORT ANGELES JULY 6,1995 Consultants to Local Government Specializing in Cable. Television: Franchising Community Needs Assessments Refranchising Ordinance Preparation Access Franchise Administration Evaluation Negotiation 504 East Main Street Auburn WA 98002 (206) 833 -8380 1 -800- 222 -9697 FAX (206) 833 -8430 5', cl D A f I Crf�111 J FRANCHISING REFRANCHISING COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS ORDINANCE PREPARATION NEGOTIATION EVALUATION FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION ACCESS Becky Upton City Clerk City of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Becky: Enclosed are two copies of our annual report for 1994 -1995. We apologize for not getting this to you in a more timely manner. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Cable Communications Consultants Lon A. Hurd Vice President /Director LAH /sb Enclosures NICATIONS CONSULTANTS July 6, 1995 J( 71996 CITY OF CLERKrEL ANGELES 502 East Main Street, Auburn, Washington 98002 (206)833 -8380 1- 800 222 -9697 FAX: (206)833 -8430 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report RATE REGULATION While leaving its options open to do so at a later date this year, the City of Port Angeles chose not to be involved in the rate regulation process that was being devised by the federal government. However we would like to bring the City up to date on what took place in late 1994 and early 1995 on the federal level. Before the year was over the number of pages of instructions issued from the other Washington numbered over a thousand and still counting. It wasn't only the sheer number that was numbing —it was the bureaucratese, the contradictions, the policy reversal, the explanations of explanations, the delays and the excuses that caused local governments and their advisors to stumble over a two and a half foot high pile of documents. Your consultants, to say the least, have strived mightily to keep abreast and ahead of this volatile landslide. We flew to Boston in March to attend the first meeting held by the FCC for franchising authorities. We now have a "red" line into FCC headquarters, subscribe to an instant FAX service, as well as to numerous other fact providing services from within and without the Agency, that did not even exist a year ago. Without getting into detail, most of you are familiar with the chronology of the events of cable television rate regulation. The inappropriately named Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 was passed in September of that year. Prefacing the Act was a policy statement decrying the astronomic increase in cable rates. The subsequent mandates that the law promulgated were to have corrected and regulated such decade long abuses. Unfortunately it was to be proven that it is easier to speak in generalities than to act in fact. The action, of course, was left largely to the FCC who begged Congress for extension after extension to develop implementation policies. 1 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants I City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report In May of 1993 the FCC issued its initial Report and Order and immediately requested yet further time before it would take effect. Delays followed delays and it was not until August of 1994 that the first rate request submissions were required. Because the regulations were so complex that on occasion even the FCC could not understand them, the so- called "393" rate submissions by most cable operators were riddled with errors. Given the opportunity to misinterpret, the cable industry, as a whole, took advantage of the confusion to minimize the impact of any rate reduction it would be forced to take under the new rules. The ten percent rate reduction goal of the FCC thus fell woefully short. As a gauge to the confusion factor existing, no one including the FCC could say precisely how short. Nonetheless undaunted and prodded by consumer complaints that in some cases their bills actually increased rather than decreased as a result of regulation, the FCC gamely tried again. With nearly as many fits and starts as with the initial attempt, the FCC put together even more complex formulae that threw more factors such as demographics into the pot with an avowed attempt, this time to get a reduction totalling seventeen percent. This new set of submissions, labeled the "1200 series" is still being digested by your consultants and by franchising authorities nationally. While preliminary analyses seem to indicate that there will be, indeed, some further rate rollbacks in some cases, it would be surprising to us, under the circumstances, if the FCC (Congressional) goal is actually achieved. The "1200 series" when completed will not, of course, write finis to rate regulation by any manner of means. For one thing the review of the new forms will take considerable time in itself. Arguments over the interpretation of the figures submitted will continue for some time. Appeals to the FCC will drag on and on. So dilatory is the Commission that only now a mere handful of decisions on expanded basic (the right to which regulation the FCC has co -opted for itself) that 2 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report were submitted nearly a year ago are just now beginning to trickle in. Additionally, of course, will be the ongoing quarterly submissions by cable companies to substantiate further rate increases. These will not only involve the simple Consumer Product Index (CPI), but will also be exceedingly complicated with the rework of tiers, ala carte offerings and the effect of external costs on its allowable price schedule. This "external cost" feature of rate regulation is not only a mere accounting problem, but it is also a potential ticking time bomb for franchising authorities. The way the regulations are presently written, or as now construed by many cable operators, almost any request made by a City, even if not written in its present franchise agreement, may be taken as a "franchising cost" to be itemized as such and passed on in a subscriber's bill. Extreme vigilance and caution must be taken in the future in even verbal requests or they can end up as a costly and embarrassing episode. Overall, the future of cable television rate reduction looks rather grim. Not only will the confusion segment remain rampant, but also loopholes will continue to increase. The FCC has set forth a tentative policy which it labels "going forward" which will permit as much as $1.50 per month additional to the formula allowance for each "new" channel provided. Additionally, of course, premium channels and Pay- Per -View (PPV) will remain unregulated by anybody. Of these PPV is to be the target of the cablers most ambitious plans. Almost everywhere operators are frantically working to upgrade their systems' capacity so as to open additional channels for PPV which they perceive to be their cash cow of the future. We have attached a chart showing Northland rates and channel capacity as they compare to other operators in the Puget Sound area. 3 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report Basic Expanded Channel Basic Expanded city Rate Basic Rate Capacity Channels Channels Auburn $10.02 $9.82 40 17 17 Des Moines $9.46 $9.31 40 17 17 Edmonds $17.09 Combined 35 29 Combined Federal Way TCI $10.18 $9.58 40 17 17 Federal Way Viacom $10.66 $14.13 54 14.5 18 Kent $10.02 $9.84 40 17 17 Kirkland $11.73 $12.34 55 17.5 22 Lake Forest Park TCI $10.09 $9.50 39 17 16 Lake Forest Park Viacom $10.77 $10.33 37 16 17 Lynnwood $11.40 $13.08 39 17 22 Marysville TCI $9.79 $10.49 37 14 15 Marysville Viacom $12.00 $12.39 37 15 16 Mountlake Terrace $11.14 $12.79 39 17 22 Mukilteo $11.43 $13.07 39 17 22 Oak Harbor $8.95 $13.16 37 14 19 Port Angeles $13.70 $7.40 46 21 10 Redmond $10.97 $12.85 54 16.5 22 Renton $9.36 $8.80 40 17 17 Seattle TCI $10.38 $10.19 40 16 17 Seattle Viacom $11.02 $10.68 40 15 18 Tukwila $10.09 $9.50 40 17 17 4 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report FRANCHISE FEES With all of the uncertainty concerning rates, this has been an extremely difficult year to estimate the franchise fees to be collected by the City of Port Angeles. Additionally with the likelihood of multiple increases within a given year, the complexity of FCC rules and further clarifications still being published next year, it appears as though the new year may be equally difficult. With all of this in mind we estimate the final Franchise fees to be collected for the year 1995 will be $110,500. 5 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report SERVICE REOUESTS Below we have presented a breakdown of the service calls received by Northland for a typical 30 -day period. These figures were obtained from logs maintained by the Operator for the month of November 1994. The first two graphs on the following page show the specific types of calls received in percentage form. One graph shows Northland's numbers while the other shows a national average. A side -by -side review of the two offers a good look at how Northland service calls in Port Angeles compare to the cable industry as a whole. The third graph shows an average percentage of subscribers requesting service calls from Northland monthly compared to the Regional average. SERVICE CALL DIAGNOSIS Reason for Call of Calls Trunk/ Distribution 3 Bad Fittings 12 Drop (subscriber feeder) 15 Customer Education 9 Customer Equipment (i.e. VCR, T.V.) 9 Northland Equipment 17 No Problem Discovered 8 Total 73 6 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 24% 13% 8% Northland Regional 11% Northland 8% 19% 4% 12% National 21% 28% f:. 1994 Annual Report Trunk /Distribution Bad Fittings Drop (subscriber feeder) Customer Education O Customer Equipment Northland Equipment a No Problem Ratio of Service Calls to Number of Subscribers (Monthly) 1.15% 1.6% 7 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1994 Annual Report TECHNICAL As we reported to you previously, in June of 1992 the FCC adopted new technical standards and Proof of Performance testing requirements. These technical standards also included a phase -in schedule for compliance and for increasing the technical specifications. We have met with the operator and reviewed all reports to determine that they continue to be in compliance with the new standards. By its very nature, the data collected is complicated and not of great interest to most. We have, however, attached some of the more informative data as Appendix "A" for your review. Should you or someone within the City be interested, we would be glad to meet and discuss this information more fully. In addition to reviewing Northland's test results, we went into the field with Northland staff to monitor new tests to verify the results. The results of these tests are found in Appendix "B You will notice that the set of results taken on June 16, 1995 reflect some readings not in compliance with FCC specifications. After discussion with Northland's technicians, it was agreed that they would complete a review of the problem and report back with new test results. We have enclosed their follow -up letter as well as the second set of results in Appendis "C Northland has reported that they have requested, and hopefully will be granted, the capital to start an upgrade of the system. Obviously an upgrade would resolve any problems they may have in keeping the system in compliance. This situation will be monitored by our Firm. A special report on the status of the upgrade and the results of a separate evaluation will be submitted within the next 90 days. 8 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants APPENDIX A FCC Proof of Performance 1 1 1 �a 1 1 1 1 1 Whispering Firs 27 deep W. 18th and McDonald 20 deep W. 10th and "N" St. 17 deep Four Seasons Ranch 12 deep Mt. Angeles /Key Rd. 11 deep Old Mill Rd. 13 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS TEST POINT LOCATIONS PORT ANGELES SEQUIM Taylor Cutoff Rd. 28 deep W. Anderson Rd. 23 deep Barr /Howe Rd. 23 deep Reservior Rd. /off 3rd Av 9 deep Secor Rd. /Riverside Rd. 13 deep Three Crabs Rd. 18 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS SELECTED CHANNELS Ch 4 4 67.25MHZ Ch 17 D 139.25MHZ CH 13 13 211.25MHZ CH 25 L 229.2625MHZ CH 29 P 253.2625MHZ CH 33 T 277.2625MHZ CH 38 BB 307.2625MHZ F.C.C. COMfPLIANCE AURAL CARRIER SEPARATION 7V/ ,00 CH 3 F�EQu 9 /ea 57 ,f/e3? C KA/7 �e aA I Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4F00104 II Blonder- tongue Ch 3 BPFd Frequency counter Texscan TFC -450 serial #E2508 Procedure 1. Tune to Video Carrier Frequency 61.25 MHZ 2. Release Tune /Count switch (wait 5 seconds) 3. Depress 4.5 MHZ /Pix switch (wait 5 seconds) 4. Read /Record aural carrier separation on selected test channels 5. Repeat steps 1 -4 for each channel Note: Wait for oven light to extinguish before making any frequency readings. T _2c'RGS F.C.C. COMPLIANCE IN BAND CHANNEL RESPONSE Res9 ,D7r Procedure 0SCiZzo5Co/°E Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 Tuneable demodulator ISS Model GL- 1000A04 Oscilloscope Tektronix 2215 serial #8032359 75 ohm termination 2 BNC T type fittings 1 for 75 ohm load 1 for producing 2 viewable fields SALDELCO 260 -B spectrum calibrator (noise generator) serial #1578 use only if no multiburst test signal is provided Determine frequency response of each selected channel at at Headend. This establishes a reference. Compare in band frequencies showing greatest difference, typically .5MHZ and 3.58 MHZ. Measurement is made at modulator or strip processor output, before any other H.E. equipment. Formula to determine response is: 3.58 MHZ IRE 20 LOG .5 MHZ IRE Note: Depending on channel response frequencies other than .5MHZ and 3.58MHZ, should be chosen to show GREATEST in band response difference. Use same formula at six test site locations. Obtaining results Standard is 2dB Subtract test point reading from H.E. reference. This yields amplitude characteristic. Example H.E. response 4.19 dB (Minus) Test Point Response 3.27 dB EQUALS Amplitude Characteristic -.92 dB Manpower: One person with multiburst test signal available. Two persons: when necessary to inject noise generator in IF section of processor or modulator at H.E. 7271 2 0w -51 CARRIER LEVEL TO COHERENT DISTURBANCE eo,tideera eff Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4f00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain noise 6 dB Spectrum Analyzer Thetacom VSM -2A Procedure 1. Measure /Record peak of Video Carrier on selected channel. 2. Remove selected channel from system at H.E. 3 Switch from 60 log to 30 log scale. 4. Insert 1KHZ noise filter. 5. Measure /Record peak level of beats that occcur directly under selected video carrier or elsewhere in band. f7N4 6. Difference between measurements #1 and #5 is result. 7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 for other selected channels. Manpower 2 people .2 9 1i9f e2o'F I /0O Procedure Manpower: Two persons CARRIER TO NOISE TEST G' H3 I C. 17'3 ev Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX 5000 serial #4F00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain /noise 6 dB F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 1. Measure /Record peak of video carrier on selected channels. 2. Remove selected channels from H.E. 3. Tune F.S.M. to middle of band between video and chroma carriers. 4. Depress C/N switch on F.S.M. and take reading. 5. Difference between step 1 and step 4 is C/N of selected channel. 6. Return selected channel to the system. a9 TA? .20 57 Procedure goo Res? F.C.C. COMPLIANCE HUM Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600B serial #1236 1. Select one unmodulated carrier 2. Peak needle towards full scale 3. Depress hum switch and read percent of hum modulation at 400HZ a9 2 o',e� F.C.C. COMPLIANCE MINIMUM SIG'AL LEVEL TEST Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire FSM SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 serial #5809 Procedure /00 AV 55 Record all video RF levels Minimum of 3dB my 1 1 1 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE 24 HOUR TEST Equipment 100' of RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B Serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 Digital Serial #5809 1 Procedure At six hour intervals during a 24 hour period, record RF levels both video RF and audio RF of every channel on system. Repeat this test at six locations in easch system. 1 Manpower: 2 persons 11:30 p.m. 5:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m. 1 1 1 1� 1 TA, -2o ',Pa s9 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE SIGNAL LEAKAGE AT SELECTED TEST POINTS Q Q, I Reg s 9 Equipment Used to Conduct Test, 100' RG 59 drop wire 81 A (Barrel) f terminator Leakage detector Trilithic Searcher tuned to Channel "C" 133.2625 MHZ Procedure 1. Attach 100' drop to test point 2. Terminate drop with 81 A and f terminator 3. Check /Record any leakage found Manpower: 1 person 1 1 dBuW 0 1 -16 -20 36 1 -40 -58 -60 -70 1 -80 1 I M H i v .1,1,1,1.1.1.1.1.1. 0dBATT .Et LASS INC DIJL 2 E+ 4 BROAD BAND RB S PON E PROD SAMP 2640 MHz I,I.I.I.i.I,I,I. n, GEN -23 dBuW M# .1 Sec DATE 04 -20 -90 TIME 12:52 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6dB Cutoff 272.97 MHz Upper 6dB Cutoff 514.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 283.23 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 515.28 MHz M4 302 kHz RES .1,1.1.1. .ARC OM LASS Z NC DD CL Z 1 dBMU 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 --50 1 -68 -70 20 165.0 30 MHzidiv MHz kHz RES .I,I.I.I, r IIII.1.I „I,I,I.I. 0 dB ATT GEM -47 dBMU Waveform File: E:X.wav DATE 03 -12 -90 TIME 1:11 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6dB Cutoff 105.51 MHz Upper 6dB Cutoff 265.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 130.13 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 265.51 MHz .I.I.I,I. ,1.1.1.1. .II i Sec ARCOM CAT/ PRODUCTS I /RCOM GAUSSIAN MG DOUBLE DENSITY DECODER Despite their limitations and inheren° picture quality problems, positive traps are still widely used to secure low penetration pay services because of their low cost and user friendly features. After years of development, similar benefits but with 'class 1' picture quality is now available using the Arcoe Gaussian passive decoding system. The Gaussian system scrambles the television picture by applying a substantial Gaussian response pre emphasis to the central portion of the video passband. Additionally, a gated carrier is inserted in the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals to supplement the scrambling effectiveness. Signals are restored with an MG decoding filter at the subscribers home. The MG decoder is an inverse of the pre emphasis, resulting in a net flat response The net flat response characteristics of the Gaussian encoder and decoder combination results in minimal phase and amplitude irregularities. Since maintaining a deep notch is not an objective of the system, improved temperature and ageing tolerance is inherent. The MG decoder is a four -pole temperature compensated filter It is mechanically identical to the high quality MN series mini -trap which ensures excellent long term RF integrity and stable performance under adverse weather conditions. The patented Gaussian system represents the latest in positive scrambling technology. Gaussian filters are user friendly allowing unlimited, multiple and simultaneous use of cable ready consumer features in televisions and VCRs. The system is no more secure than current positive traps, but has dramatically improved picture quality. The recommended operating range for the Gaussian system are those frequencies below 250MHz. This frequency limitation is not due to a lack of resolution, but due to excessive insertion loss at higher frequencies. FEATURES 'CLASS 1' PICTURES ECONOMIC AND USER FRIENDLY SMALL PHYSICAL SIZE MADE IN THE USA I J PATENT #5,022,078 MG-8 Ij I t I 1 1 I 1 11 r n Got 11 1i0 1 to I i I MODEL a =aaa- C- -x:ari .aa (14) (16) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) MN -H (21) MN -I (22) N CHANNEL 7 MN -7 (7) 1V CHANNELS MN -2 MN -3 MN -4 MN -5 MN N CHANNELS MN -A -2 MN -A--1 MN -A MN -B MN -C MN -D MN -E MN -F MN -3 MODEL N CHANNELS MP- 2 MP -3 MP -4 MP -5 MP -8 TV CHANNELS MP -A -2 MP -A -1 117.50 MP -A (14) 123,60 MP -B (15) 129.60 MP -C (18) 135.60 MP -D (17) 141.50 MP -E (18) 147.60 MP -F (19) 153.50 MP -G (20) 149.50 MP -H (21) 165.60 MP -I (22) 171.50 N CHANNEL 7 MP -7 (7) 177.60 ,21- {,IAN -92 CH NOTCH FREO (MHz) 2THRU (2) 55.26 (3) 81.25 (4) 87.28 (5) 77.25 (8) 83.25 A -2 THRU 1(22) 10926 115.25 121.25 127.25 133.25 139.26 145.25 161.25 157.26 163.26 169.25 176.25 CH NOTCH FREQ (MHz) 2THRU6 (2) 57.50 (3) 83.50 (4) 89,50 (8) 79,50 (6) 85.50 A -2 THRU 1(22) 111.60 STANDARD FOUR -POLE SHARP NEGATIVE TRAPS TYPICAL BANDWIDTH 60 dB 3dB (kHz) (MHz) as- 771/Wff[- (LOW -BAND) 150 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 300 6.0 300 6,0 (MID-BAND) 220 5.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6,0 220 6.0 220 5.0 230 8.0 230 8.0 230 8.0 250 8.0 250 8.0 (HIGH -BAND) 250 8.0 TYPICAL BANDWIDTH 50 dB 3dB (kHz) (MHz) =o•a{= ==•n (LOW-BAND) 150 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 300 5.0 300 6,0 MID -BAND) 220 5.0 220 5.0 220 5.0 220 5.0 220 6.0 220 5,0 230 8.0 290 8.0 230 6,0 250 6.0 250 6.0 (HIGH BAND) 260 8.0 TYPICAL TYPICAL LOWER SOUND UPPER 2 ND 1 ST VIDEO (dB) (dB) (dB) aataaC 1•= 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 7,0 1,0 7,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 STANDARD FOUR -POLE SHARP POSITIVE TRAPS ATTENUATION (TYPICAL) VIDEO COLOR SOUND CARRIER (dB) (dB) (dB) NE xaaa 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.9 2.6 3,0 3.2 3.4 3,6 3,8 4.0 4.2 4,4 4.8 4.8 5,0 8.0 6.6 7,0 7.5 8,0 9.0 9.4 0,8 10.2 10.8 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.2 12.8 13.0 rand 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.6 3.0 3,2 3.4 3.8 3,8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.8 6.0 MAX. ATT. (MHz) 400 800 800 (dB) >zc =lwar>iaaar =sa{ 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 >10 6.0 >10 4.5 >10 4.6 >10 4.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 9.0 >10 94 >10 2.0 >10 2,0 >10 2,0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2,0 >10 1.0 1.0 2.0 >10 MAX. ATT. (MHz) 400 800 800 (dB) s =ara =4e. =S rt 2.5 5,0 10 2.5 6.0 >10 2.0 4.6 >1 0 2.0 4.5 >1 0 2,0 4.0 >10 1.0 3.0 >10 1.0 3.0 >10 1.0 3.0 >10 1.0 3.0 >10 1.0 3.0 >10 1.0 2,0 >10 1.0 2.0 >10 1.0 2.0 >1 0 1.0 2.0 >10 1.0 2.0 >10 1.0 2.0 >10 6.2 13.5 6.2 1.0 2.0 >10 -specifications subject to change without notice THETA COM Model Nom. Tap Insertion Loss Input Output Tap -Out Loss 5 -300 MHz Return Loss Isolation 1 dB Nom. Max. (dB Min.) (dB Min) 5 -300 MHz ALL MODELS Four Output Tap XR2DT /4 -7 7 18 -10 10 3.6 3.8 20 26 13 13 1.7 2.0 20 26 17 17 1.0 1.2 20 26 20 20 0.6 0.8 20 32 23 23 0.4 0.6 20 36 26 26 0.3 0.6 20 36 29 29 0.3 0.5 20 36 32 32 0.3 0.5 20 36 35 35 0.3 0.5 20 40 Tap Return Loss dB Min. 20 Tap to Tap Isolation -dB Min. 20 Current Capacity Amps, rms 3 5 -300 MI-Iz Issued 2 -1 -73 Page -3 Multi -Taps Four -Port REGAL 5 -10 10 -50 50 -300 300 -400 400 -500 500 -600 MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz Isolation (dB) tap -to -tap 24 27 27 27 25 24 Return loss (dB min) 16 19 20 20 18 16 Tap loss tolerance (dB) ±1 5 ±1 0 ±1 0 ±1 0 ±1 0 ±1 5 EMI shielding (dB min) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Power rating 6 Amps AC /DC, 60 Volts, 60 Hz Anixter No 082485 82486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 082485 082486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 Z ,4.,rr1., Cab). TV 1992 '.'moor P'1T64 -8 P 1 T64 -1 Rt.1T64 -14 RMT64 -17 P'.1T64 -20 64 -23 RMT64 -26 RMT64 -29 RMT64 -32 RMT64 -35 Typical tap loss 74 dB 108dB 143dB 173dB 20 3 dB 234dB 26 2 dB 293dB 32 5 dB 35 1 d$ RMT64 -8 7 4 dB RMT64 -11 10 8 dB RMT64 -14 14 3 dB RMT64 -17 17 3 dB RMT64 -20 20 3 dB RMT64 -23 23.4 dB RMT64 -26 26 2 dB RMT64 -29 29 3 dB RMT64 -32 32.5 dB RMT64 -35 35 1 dB MULTI -TAPS I Insertion loss (dB) 5 -10 10 -50 I 50 -300 300 -400 400 -500 Color code MHz MHz I MHz MHz MHz black T T T I T T gold I 37 3C 32 35 39 blue 1 8 1 5 1 5 2 0 2 3 navy blue 1 0 0= 0 9 1 3 1 4 orange 07 07 0 1 10 1 1 tan i 07 0 09 09 orange -red 0 5 0.5 0 5 0 7 0 8 purple 05 05 05 j 06 08 red 0 5 0 5 0.5 0 6 0.8 green 05 05 05 06 0.8 Out -to -tap isolation (dB) black T T gold 21 25 blue 25 28 navy blue 28 32 orange 30 34 tan 33 37 orange -red 36 40 purple 38 42 red 40 43 green 43 46 C -86 TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS 360 aluminum alloy housing with double polyurethane coating Stainless steel hardware Sealed 1 -piece nickel plated machined brass F ports F port entry seal and 0 ring to seal F port through faceplate Neoprene weather gasket and interlocking tongue and groove between housing and faceplate Woven metallic RFI gasket in housing channel Printed circuit board (PCB) and plastic cover 5/8" port extensions and F port drip wells Four seizure screws and non rotational c.c. seizure post for installation consistency Tapered c.c. entry and strip gauge for correct c c trim length Numbered F ports T 25 28 32 34 37 40 42 43 46 T T 25 25 28 27 32 29 34 32 37 35 40 38 42 40 43 42 46 44 500 -60: MHz T 42 25 16 14 11 10 10 10 10 T 22 25 27 31 33 35 37 39 42 Video r 2 3 4 5 6 9$ 99 14 15 16 11 1$ 19 2 I 21 22 I 8 9 10 i 11 12 13 I 23 24 I 23 27 ?.8 t 29 30 31 1 32 33 34 1 35 36 I 37 3$ 39 t _40 I Feeney aadto q .5oO ab. Terminal Fn�oeney C g Mdta Video I •1 1 coy i 1 •h i rnplA a ,n A t =xa�u y S oZpAV 1 1 Video 2 3 4 5 6 9K 99 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 I 26 27 2 I 29 30 Si 1 Prcdca Audio gab. Terminal Prctacacy p�,Mdio video su,- 1 J i 9619929 ,1 ,1r;" 11,4S4r it. ZT f4 gi 7. 7 itle y:,3 wrogolosaw (2 alemowissi 48 '4114 lii&rvtfmattrf 000000(npoo ;;0 000000qcb000 :toopobaki(io,p r p r. 9 h 9h 9h 000 oocr0000 .;--':7,l000000<y000p:;51 000p000poo) ._0000ft,000tKio 000 0000popg. fi b 0 000 66000®..!1?09-_0 000000000_00 00000000000 0000000000. 00000000000 00000004000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000R00000 00000000000 00000000000 00006100000 00000(000000 99 oavosocKkoo cmiOoofh00000 zz 00000.0 °4"4"°° 00000000000 00004000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 000119000000 :`,600ctoct00000 00000®o�0 zE 000000000Q0 0 n0000peotwo gz- 0000op000t30 9Z ZI 01 6 00000 61 00000 ------,p000 1.-- 0 0 0 000 0 '-z °I 23 7, 0%70: 0000°°"° 0 7;;-'.1. 00 00 0 0 0600 0000000000`1- „IN-00 000000,C. i ::4: ..7 Aef 00000000000 :1 ...,,,„;..:Z.reri..; .00000000000 000000 E .,.,,,:.,,H?11,., 0 f j I 1, _9 =.7.-.. ,:00000000000 °°°°°°1- 4 :4 3. 1 1 I ligl 1-11. 9 7 ii 46%92, a 60-44. .4... 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 6 Af I O lb II 6 6 2 5+ 749 ,,1 AD AV PT: Inas!A 4, .,bliir.,...1 -p. -!..V' 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Viinal Carrier, ooeoo0oo0000 0000 o iaoo a oo o 000 o 141'00000000000 w 0 /c'0000 99' 14, w 1S` untYc►o00a000 -Y1 6• Y q _o�00000 .::173 oiiboo000000 18 r oom�oe000000 -19 000 00000® ZI tioo* P Poo 22 dooi3O4s00000 7 C oonoOe0000 8 00000®00000 9 00000000000 10 00000000000 11 00000eoa000 12 0o000000000 13 o0oo0O00000 23 00000O*0000 24 00000000000 25 000000d0000 26 00000060000 27 oo ao000 28 00000®00000 29 00000®00000 30 000004300000 31 oti000000000 32 00000800000 33 oo64$030oO000 34 000go0 :351 '"00000400000 .36 ocxiob 00000 37' .>(Kwd000oo0 38 00000000000 oo po®00000 .000fi000000U 'studio Carrier Ctr Level -5 +5 00000000000 00000000000 o000o000000 00000O 0000 00000®00000 00 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 04000000000 000do000000 0000oC00000 00000000000 00000O00000 00000800000 00000000000 00000000000 000030000co 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000O00000 00000000000 0 se ..s 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 `t< 000 00 Coherent Channel M- D, itn'ifiince Reiponie 96 5 Y7 T -o/s5 1 4:19 so /s5' t•26 f, -2o t. 76 J .4 I. 0000°000cm° 00°o°000 cm° 000°00000o° 0000990oo0o 0°00000tit000 orm tootMOOAcm.0 °O0O00ocmoo -34 3S ooO0000 36 °,(1;0° 01twOo 0 f3T 4441_04VO° 38 00000090000 .39 1)64O0°OCM 40 0°0°00 cm PAGR 1 -.1/,• 9 -.13-00 O 0 kt 00 0 ,0? 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 .tre,' II '22' Visual Carrie Azdio Carrier &Pr Ctr Level .3 0°60°0000°o 000tioumoo*,- );locio90000(4 47 6 f,',:tioii 98 4:1004) 99 7- 0000C 10 1:4 40 00000000000 15 000°00000cio 000°0000°o° 18 .0000 :c 0.1or 20 OoockcirrOo: O4:, 21 00000bro n OCM04:44km 7 (m000liMocm 8 000 o of) 00000 9 0OO'00O'J0 10 0000tB000 0° 11 00' 12 04,0000°000o 13 00000#900000 23 o0o0o000000 24 mmoOpoono 25 0000006b000 00000000000 000000000°o cm000P00000 oommecmoo ocmoo0otkoo (m000tt00000 ocm°000°00 00000Od0000 00000g00000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 0o0ooDoc000 00°0°00000o cmoo000000 00000000000 cmoo°00ocmo 00000000000 00000000000 mm000000°0 000000**000 00°00000000 00000000000 0****00000o 0000°0000o° 0000°00000° 0000°0°000o 0°0°00000o* 00,00°0000o° 1 1 A j-tlz _Yg Clan ael ,..,,m- ON HUM''.! fintairbaaie Response .?*.f,l' 1"...c-- i:•4 1.4414 jOitr'-''.;`• e.,,, 1,1:::',WAPIO~Vit V-5, F :g Sabi** 3 0 '''14 e':• SALkss-, I wAvETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 File: 24_HOUR_FCC L...ation: 18TH_MCDONALD Date: 01/25/95 I Test Point Compensation: Chan 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3 37 6 38 39 1 Label CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KC TS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV AE DISC HN TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC 'LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level Delta Video Levels: Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: f ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Interval: 2 Area: PA Time: 13:16:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +12.5 +13.8 +15.1 +15.6 +15.3 +15.8 +13.5 +12.1 +12.8 +13.1 +13.9 +16.5 +16.7 +16.8 +17.3 +16.7 +16.9 +16.8 +17.4 +17.3 +16.8 +18.0 +17.3 +17.4 +17.8 +17.5 +17.3 +16.1 +15.9 +15.9 +16.6 +16.5 +16.8 +17.0 +17.1 +17.5 +18.1 +18.3 +17.1 +15.9 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) 1.6 -0.9 +0.0 +0.9 +0.2 -1.5 -1.9 -2.0 1.7 1.7 +0.6 +1.9 +1.7 +1.9 +4.4 +1.5 +2.2 +2.0 +1.8 +0.6 +1.8 +2.6 +2.0 +2.3 +1.9 +1.9 +1.0 +1.1 +1.3 +1.3 +1.8 +1.3 +1.6 +2.0 +2.0 +2.4 +2.9 +2.8 +0.0 0.2 Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +72F Delta V -A (dB) 14.1 14.7 15.1 14.7 15.1 17.3 HI 15.4 14.1 14.5 14.8 13.3 14.6 15.0 14.9 12.9 15.2 14.7 14.8 15.6 16.7 15.0 15.4 15.3 15.1 15.9 15.6 16.3 15.0 14.6 14.6 14.8 15.2 15.2 15.0 15.1 15.1 15.2 15.5 17.1 HI 16.1 Actual CH 14 +12.1 dBmV CH 14 37 6.2 dB CH 21 12.9 dB CH 98 17.3 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass F A I L WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR' Serial No: 5033227 I File: 24_HOUR_FCC ill i_cation: 18TH_MCDONALD Date: 01/25/95 I Test Point Compensation: I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Chan Label' 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV AE DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: I N� Delta Video Levels: i Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: I Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Interval: 3 Area: PA Time: 19:16:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +14.9 +15.8 +17.1 +17.4 +16.6 +15.8 +14.4 +12.9 +13.3 +13.4 +14.0 +16.2 +17.0 +16.9 +16.8 +16.5 +16.7 +17.1 +16.8 +16.8 +16.7 +17.0 +16.8 +17.4 +17.6 +17.4 +17.0 +16.3 +15.7 +16.2 +16.9 +16.9 +17.2 +17.1 +16.6 +17.1 +18.0 +18.2 +17.6 +16.0 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) +1.3 +1.4 +1.8 +2.4 +1.5 0.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 -1.5 +0.7 +1.9 +1.8 +1.8 +3.9 +1.3 +2.6 +1.9 +2.0 +0.8 +1.4 +0.8 +1.6 +2.2 +1.4 +1.8 +1.0 +1.3 +1.4 +1.6 +1.8 +1.6 +1.4 +1.5 +1.8 +2.2 +2.9 +2.8 +0.1 0.7 Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +45F Delta V -A (dB) 13.6 14.4 15.3 15.0 15.1 16.4 15.7 14.4 14.8 14.9 13.3 14.3 15.2 15.1 12.9 15.2 14.1 15.2 14.8 16.0 15.3 16.2 15.2 15.2 16.2 15.6 16.0 15.0 14.3 14.6 15.1 15.3 15.8 15.6 14.8 14.9 15.1 15.4 17.5 HI 16.7 Actual CH 14 +12.9 dBmV CH 14 37 5.2 dB CH 21 12.9 dB CH 38 17.5 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass F A I L 1 1 1 II WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 File: 24_HOUR_FCC Location: 18TH_MCDONALD Date: 01/26/95 Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB Chan, Label 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: T' 7 Delta Video Levels: 111_,A Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: "Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Interval: 4 Area: PA Time: 01:16:29 Video Level (dBmV) +14.2 +15.4 +16.4 +16.8 +16.4 +15.9 +14.4 +12.9 +13.3 +13.5 +14.1 +16.1 +17.0 +17.0 +17.0 +16.7 +16.9 +17.3 +17.1 +16.8 +16.7 +17.5 +17.0 +17.4 +17.3 +17.3 +17.1 +16.1 +16.0 +16.3 +17.0 +17.0 +17.2 +17.0 +16.8 +17.5 +17.9 +18.4 +17.5 +15.3 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) +0.5 +0.7 +1.2 +2.1 +1.6 0.7 -1.2 1.3 1.5 -1.6 +0.6 +2.0 +1.7 +1.8 +4.2 +1.5 +2.4 +1.9 +2.3 +1.2 +2.1 +2.6 +1.8 +2.2 +1.5 +1.8 +1.1 +1.2 +1.4 +1.6 +2.2 +1.6 +1.5 +1.6 +1.7 +2.1 +2.6 +2.5 0.2 -1.7 Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +37F Delta V -A (dB) 13.7 14.7 15.2 14.7 14.8 16.6 15.6 14.2 14.8 15.1 13.5 14.1 15.3 15.2 12.8 15.2 14.5 15.4 14.8 15.6 14.6 14.9 15.2 15.2 15.8 15.5 16.0 14.9 14.6 14.7 14.8 15.4 15.7 15.4 15.1 15.4 15.3 15.9 17.7 HI 17.0 Actual CH 14 +12.9 dBmV CH 14 37 5.5 dB CH 21 12.8 dB CH 38 17.8 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass F A I L Chan Label Video Level Audio Level Delta V -A (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) 2 CBUT +13.5 -0.3 13.8 3 NCN3 +15.3 +0.1 15.2 II 4 KOMO +15.3 +0.2 15.1 5 KING +15.7 +1.2 14.5 6 CHEK +16.0 +0.8 15.2 98 PPV +16.0 -0.7 16.7 99 ENC +13.6 -1.5 15.1 14 HBO +12.5 -1.9 14.4 15 SHOW +13.0 -1.6 14.6 II 16 CMAX +13.2 -1.8 15.0 17 CSPN +14.2 +0.5 13.7 18 WTBS +16.3 +1.9 14.4 19 QVC +16.6 +1.5 15.1 20 PPV +16.9 +1.8 15.1 21 E_G +17.0 +4.2 12.8 22 CNN +16.8 +1.3 15.5 7 KIRO +16.5 +2.3 14.2 8 CHAN +16.9 +1.9 15.0 9 KCTS +17.1 +1.9 15.2 10 CKVU +16.9 +0.6 16.3 11 KSTW +16.7 +1.5 15.2 12 KVOS +17.5 +2.3 15.2 13 KCPQ +17.1 +1.7 15.4 23 FAM +17.4 +2.1 15.3 24 CNBC +17.4 +1.5 15.9 25 TNT +17.5 +1.7 15.8 II 26 ESPN +17.5 +1.0 16.5 27 MTV +15.8 +0.8 15.0 28 A_E +15.4 +1.0 14.4 29 DISC +16.0 +1.4 14.6 30 H_N +16.9 +1.7 15.2 31 TNN +17.0 +1.5 15.5 32 TRAV +17.2 +1.4 15.8 II 33 USA +17.0 +1.6 15.4 34 PSN +16.9 +1.8 15.1 35 NOST +17.4 +2.3 15.1 36 DISN +18.0 +3.0 15.0 37 TOON +18.1 +2.5 15.6 38 LIFE +17.3 -0.5 17.8 HI 39 AMC +15.3 -1.9 17.2 HI 'LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 14 +12.5 dBmV Pass IL) Delta Video Levels: 10.0 dB CH 14 37 5.7 dB Pass Delta V /A: 6.5 dB CH 21 12.8 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 38 17.8 dB Fail I( ax Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Pass 1 1 AVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 File: 24 HOUR FCC Interval: 5 L_�ation: 18TH_MCDONALD Area: PA User ID: JJ Date: 01/26/95 Time: 07:16:29 Temp: +41F ,Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB onclusion: 2 c 1 e cr35 /19 Cal Date: 12/12/94 F A I L WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e: 24_HOUR_FCC Location: 10TH_N_ST Ir ate: 01/25/95 Test Point Compensation: Chan Label Video Level Audio Level Delta V -A (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) 2 CBUT +10.9 -3.2 14.1 3 NCN3 +11.7 -3.0 14.7 4 KOMO +13.1 -2.2 15.3 5 KING +13.9 -0.3 14.2 6 CHEK +14.2 -1.1 15.3 98 PPV +16.1 -1.3 17.4 HI 99 ENC +12.8 -1.8 14.6 14 HBO +13.1 -3.0 16.1 II 15 SHOW +12.9 -1.9 14.8 16 CMAX +12.9 -2.6 15.5 17 CSPN +12.9 -0.6 13.5 18 WTBS +14.9 +1.2 13.7 19 QVC +16.0 +0.8 15.2 20 PPV +16.1 +0.7 15.4 21 E_G +16.8 +3.8 13.0 22 CNN +16.4 +1.1 15.3 7 KIRO +16.5 +1.7 14.8 8 CHAN +16.4 +1.3 15.1 9 KCTS +16.7 +0.7 16.0 10 CKVU +16.4 -0.9 17.3 HI 11 KSTW +16.2 +0.3 15.9 12 KVOS +17.3 +1.4 15.9 13 KCPQ +16.8 +1.0 15.8 23 FAM +17.0 +1.4 15.6 24 CNBC +17.0 +1.1 15.9 II 25 TNT +16.5 +1.3 15.2 26 ESPN +16.5 +0.5 16.0 27 MTV +15.2 +0.4 14.8 28 A_E +15.0 +0.0 15.0 29 DISC +15.5 +0.1 15.4 30 H_N +15.6 +0.2 15.4 31 TNN +15.3 -0.9 16.2 II 32 TRAY +14.9 -0.9 15.8 33 USA +15.1 -0.4 15.5 34 PSN +15.0 -0.2 15.2 35 NOST +15.4 +0.0 15.4 36 DISN +15.8 +0.8 15.0 37 TOON +16.3 +1.2 15.1 It 38 LIFE +16.7 +0.8 15.9 39 AMC +16.1 -0.6 16.7 LIMIT CHECK Iri Video Carrier Level: Delta Video Levels: Min Delta V /A: f ax Delta V /A: ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Interval: 2 Area: PA Time: 13:35:29 +0.0 dB Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Cal Date: 11/21/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +79F Actual CH 2 +10.9 dBmV CH 2 12 6.4 dB CH 21 13.0 dB CH 98 17.4 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 11/21/94 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 File: 24 HOUR FCC L.,cation: ,10TH_N_ST Date: 01/25/95 Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB Chan Label 2 CBUT 3 NCN3 4 KOMO 5 KING 6 CHEK 98 PPV 99 ENC 14 HBO 15 SHOW 16 CMAX 17 CSPN 18 WTBS 19 QVC 20 PPV 21 E_G 22 CNN 7 KIRO 8 CHAN 9 KCTS 10 CKVU 11 KSTW 12 KVOS 13 KCPQ 23 FAM 24 CNBC 25 TNT 26 ESPN 27 MTV 28 A_E 29 DISC 30 H_N 31 TNN 32 TRAV 33 USA 34 PSN 35 NOST 36 DISN 37 TOON 38 LIFE 39 AMC LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: N Delta Video Levels: Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Interval: 3 Area: PA Time: 19:35:29 Video Level (dBmV) +12.7 +13.5 +14.5 +15.5 +15.3 +15.9 +13.5 +14.0 +13.4 +13.6 +13.4 +15.6 +16.5 +16.5 +16.6 +16.5 +16.6 +16.2 +17.0 +16.6 +16.3 +17.7 +16.9 +17.0 +17.0 +16.6 +16.8 +16.0 +15.6 +15.6 +16.3 +15.8 +15.7 +15.5 +15.1 +15.6 +16.1 +16.7 +17.2 +16.3 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) 2.0 -1.5 -0.9 +0.9 -0.2 -0.8 1.1 2.4 -1.4 2.2 0.2 +1.3 +1.1 +1.1 +3.5 +1.3 +2.0 +1.9 +0.4 +0.0 +0.5 +1.7 +1.1 +1.3 +1.2 +1.7 +0.9 +0.8 +0.6 +0.8 +0.8 0.3 -0.7 0.3 0.1 +0.2 +1.1 +1.5 +1.1 0.7 User ID: JJ' Temp: +41F Delta V -A (dB) 14.7 15.0 15.4 14.6 15.5 16.7 14.6 16.4 14.8 15.8 13.6 14.3 15.4 15.4 13.1 15.2 14.6 14.3 16.6 16.6 15.8 16.0 15.8 15.7 15.8 14.9 15.9 15.2 15.0 14.8 15.5 16.1 16.4 15.8 15.2 15.4 15.0 15.2 16.1 17.0 Actual CH 2 +12.7 dBmV CH 2 12 5.0 dB CH 21 13.0 dB CH 39 17.0 dB Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass P A S S I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model:' 3SR Serial No: 5023129 1 1 File: 24_HOUR_FCC 10TH_N Date: 01/26/95 Test Point Compensation: II Chan Label 1 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9 10 11 12 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV EG CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC LIMIT CHECK IL Video Carrier Level: Delta Video Levels: Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: t ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Interval: 4 Area: PA Time: 01:35:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +12.4 +13.2 +14.7 +15.6 +15.2 +15.6 +14.1 +14.0 +13.8 +13.7 +13.6 +15.7 +16.5 +16.6 +16.7 +16.6 +16.9 +17.1 +17.0 +16.9 +16.7 +17.2 +16.9 +17.1 +17.4 +17.1 +17.1 +15.7 +16.0 +16.0 +16.6 +16.4 +15.3 +15.3 +15.1 +15.8 +16.1 +16.8 +16.5 +15.5 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) 2.3 1.6 -0.7 +1.1 +0.2 0.8 0.9 2.4 1.2 -2.1 +0.0 +1.4 +1.2 +1.4 +3.9 +1.8 +2.5 +2.0 +0.9 +0.2 +0.3 +2.2 +1.5 +1.4 +1.2 +1.8 +1.0 +0.7 +0.6 +0.8 +1.0 0.4 0.7 -0.3 -0.1 +0.3 +1.0 +1.1 +0.4 -2.2 Cal Date: 11/21/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +41F Delta •V -A (dB) 14.7 14.8 15.4 14.5 15.0 16.4 15.0 16.4 15.0 15.8 13.6 14.3 15.3 15.2 12.8 14.8 14.4 15.1 16.1 16.7 16.4 15.0 15.4 15. 16.2 15.3 16.1 15.0 15.4 15.2 15.6 16.8 16.0 15.6 15.2 15.5 15.1 15.7 16.1 17.7 HI Actual CH 2 +12.4 dBmV CH 2 24 5.0 dB CH 21 12.8 dB CH 39 17.7 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Conclusion: F A I L I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'File: 24_HOUR_FCC L..cation: 10TH_N_ST Date: 01/26/95 Test Point Compensation: 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2� 8 9 10 11 12 1 23 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Chan Label 1 LIMIT CHECK Min Ij Max 'Max Video Delta Delta Delta Delta Conclusion: CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC Carrier Level: Video Levels: V /A: V /A: Adjacent Channels: Interval.: 5 Area: PA Time: 07:35:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +11.5 +13.6 +13.7 +14.8 +14.8 +16.2 +13.6 +13.6 +13.5 +13.7 +13.4 +15.3 +16.9 +16.4 +16.8 +16.6 +16.7 +16.5 +17.1 +16.9 +16.5 +17.2 +17.0 +17.3 +17.0 +16.8 +16.9 +15.4 +15.6 +16.0 +16.1 +15.9 +16.0 +15.6 +15.2 +15.8 +16.4 +16.6 +17.1 +15.2 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB ji Audio Level (dBmV) -3.1 -2.2 1.5 +0.3 0.3 0.5 -1.0 2.5 1.3 2.3 -0.3 +1.1 +1.0 +0.9 +3.8 +1.5 +2.7 +2.0 +0.5 0.5 +0.7 +2.0 +1.3 +1.3 +1.0 +1.6 +0.9 +0.8 +0.2 +0.6 +0.5 -0.4 0.7 -0.3 -0.1 +0.4 +1.1 +1.3 +0.4 2.3 Cal Date: 11/21/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +34F Delta V -A (dB) 14.6 15.8 15.2 14.5 15.1 16.7 14.6 16.1 14.8 16.0 13.7 14.2 15.9 15.5 13.0 15.1 14.0 14.5 16.6 17.4 HI 15.8 15.2 15.7 16.0 16.0 15.2 16.0 14.6 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.3 16.7 15.9 15.3 15.4 15.3 15.3 16.7 17.5 HI Actual CH 2 +11.5 dBmV CH 2 23 5.8 dB CH 21 13.0 dB CH 39 17.5 dB Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass F A I L I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIMIT CHECK 1 r File: 24_HOUR_FCC L��ation: MT_ANGELES_KEY Date: 01/26/95 .Test Point Compensation: Min Max rax Chan Label 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC HN TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC Video Carrier Level: Delta Video Levels: Delta V /A: Delta V /A: Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Interval: 2 Area: PA Time: 14:45:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +14.6 +15.6 +16.0 +16.7 +16.9 +17.0 +14.4 +14.3 +13.9 +14.1 +15.1 +17.9 +18.3 +18.6 +17.8 +18.3 +18.4 +18.2 +18.7 +18.2 +18.4 +19.5 +18.4 +19.3 +19.4 +18.8 +19.4 +19.3 +19.4 +19.4 +19.8 +19.7 +19.8 +19.9 +19.6 +19.4 +19.8 +20.2 +20.5 +19.5 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) +0.6 +0.3 +0.9 +2.1 +2.3 +0.6 0.2 1.6 0.5 1.0 +2.2 +3.4 +3.2 +3.5 +5.6 +3.0 +4.0 +3.5 +2.8 +1.9 +2.7 +3.9 +3.3 +3.7 +3.3 +4.1 +4.4 +4.8 +4.4 +4.3 +4.7 +4.1 +4.2 +4.6 +4.3 +4.6 +4.9 +5.0 +4.5 +3.5 CH 15 CH 15 38 CH 21 CH 98 Actual Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +55F Delta V -A (dB) 14.0 15.3 15.1 14.6 14.6 16.4 14.6 15.9 14.4 15.1 12.9 14.5 15.1 15.1 12.2 15.3 14.4 14.7 15.9 16.3 15.7 15.6 15.1 15.6 16.1 14.7 15.0 14.5 15.0 15.1 15.1 15.6 15.6 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.9 15.2 16.0 16.0 +13.9 dBmV Pass 6.6 dB Pass 12.2 dB Pass 16.4 dB Pass Pass P A S S I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 File: 24_HOUR_FCC L..„:ation: MT_ANGELES_KEY Date: 01/26/95 I est Point Compensation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2� 8 9 10 11 12 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Chan Label Conclusion: CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: Delta Video Levels: Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: "ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Interval: 3 Area: PA Time: 20:45:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +13.3 +13.9 +15.0 +15.6 +15.8 +16.1 +13.5 +13.6 +13.1 +13.2 +14.1 +16.9 +17.7 +18.2 +18.2 +17.7 +17.8 +17.7 +18.2 +18.1 +17.8 +17.1 +18.1 +18.9 +19.1 +18.6 +19.1 +18.8 +18.7 +18.7 +19.3 +19.2 +19.5 +19.3 +19.2 +19.3 +19.6 +20.3 +20.3 +19.6 Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) 0.2 1.0 -0.3 +1.0 +0.7 -0.1 -1.1 -2.5 1.3 1.7 +1.3 +2.6 +2.5 +2.7 +4.5 +2.4 +3.5 +2.9 +2.4 +2.0 +2.5 +1.5 +2.7 +3.5 +3.2 +3.7 +4.3 +4.4 +3.8 +4.0 +4.7 +3.8 +3.9 +4.0 +4.2 +4.5 +4.8 +4.9 +4.5 +3.7 Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +45F Delta V -A (dB) 13.5 14.9 15.3 14.6 15.1 16.2 14.6 16.1 14.4 14.9 12.8 14.3 15.2 15.5 13.7 15.3 14.3 14.8 15.8 16.1 15.3 15.6 15.4 15.4 15.9 14.9 14.8 14.4 14.9 14.7 14.6 15.4 15.6 15.3 15.0 14.8 14.8 15.4 15.8 15.9 Actual CH 15 +13.1 dBmV CH 15 37 7.2 dB CH 17 12.8 dB CH 98 16.3 dB Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass P A S S I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 File: 24_HOUR_FCC MT_ANGELES_KEY Date: 01/27/95 Il Test Point Compensation: 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2� 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Chan Label CBUT NCN3 KOMO KING CHEK PPV ENC HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC PPV E_G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN MTV A_E DISC H_N TNN TRAV USA PSN NOST DISN TOON LIFE AMC Interval: 4 Area: PA Time: 02:45:29 +0.0 dB Video Level (dBmV) +4.3 +14.9 HI +15.8 HI +16.4 HI +16.4 HI +16.1 HI +14.0 +13.9 +13.5 +13.6 +14.6 HI +17.3 HI +18.0 HI +18.4 HI +18.6 HI +18.1 HI +18.4 HI +18.5 HI +18.9 HI +18.5 HI +18.3 HI +18.5 HI +18.8 HI +19.4 HI +19.8 HI +19.3 HI +19.6 HI +19.3 HI +19.5 HI +19.8 HI +20.3 HI +20.0 HI +20.4 HI +20.0 HI +19.8 HI +19.7 HI +19.8 HI +21.1 HI +20.9 HI +20.5 HI LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: I M -c Delta Video Levels: 1_J Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: "Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: _y Limit +0.0 dBmV 10.0 dB 6.5 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Audio Level (dBmV) -38.3 0.2 +0.6 +1.7 +1.7 +0.2 -0.7 2.1 -0.9 -1.4 +1.7 +3.0 +3.0 +3.2 +5.0 +2.9 +3.8 +3.5 +3.1 +2.3 +3.2 +3.1 +3.5 +4.2 +3.7 +4.5 +4.7 +5.0 +4.7 +4.7 +5.3 +4.4 +4.6 +4.8 +5.0 +4.5 +5.4 +5.7 +5.3 +4.7 Cal Date: 12/12/94 User ID: JJ Temp: +37F Delta V -A (dB) 42.6 HI 15.1 15.2 14.7 14.7 15.9 14.7 16.0 14.4 15.0 12.9 14.3 15.0 15.2 13.6 15.2 14.6 15.0 15.8 16.2 15.] 15.4 15.3 15.2 16.1 14.8 14.9 14.3 14.8 15.1 15.0 15.6 15.8 15.2 14.8 15.2 14.4 15.4 15.6 15.8 Actual CH 2 +4.3 dBmV Pass CH 2 37 16.8 dB Fail CH 17 12.9 dB Pass CH 2 42.6 dB Fail Fail F A I L I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I File: 24_HOUR_FCC Interval: 5 L,.�ation: MT_ANGELES_KEY Area: PA User ID: JJ Date: 01/27/95 Time: 08:45:29 Temp: +45F Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB Cal Date: 12/12/94 Chan Label Video Level Audio Level Delta V -A (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) 2 CBUT +12.9 -1.4 14.3 3 NCN3 +13.8 -1.4 15.2 4 KOMO +14.9 -0.3 15.2 5 KING +15.5 +0.8 14.7 6 CHEK +15.9 +1.1 14.8 98 PPV +16.3 -0.1 16.4 99 ENC +13.6 -1.2 14.8 14 HBO +13.5 -2.4 15.9 15 SHOW +13.2 -1.2 14.4 16 CMAX +13.3 -1.8 15.1 17 CSPN +14.2 +1.2 13.0 18 WTBS +16.8 +2.7 14.1 19 QVC +17.6 +2.6 15.0 20 PPV +18.0 +2.8 15.2 21 E_G +18.0 +4.9 13.1 22 CNN +17.8 +2.4 15.4 7 KIRO +17.9 +3.7 14.2 8 CHAN +18.0 +3.1 14.9 9 KCTS +18.2 +2.0 16.2 10 CKVU +17.5 +2.3 15.2 11 KSTW +17.8 +2.5 15.3 12 KVOS +17.8 +2.8 15.0 13 KCPQ +17.6 +3.0 14.6 23 FAM +18.8 +3.5 15.3 24 CNBC +19.0 +3.1 15.9 25 TNT +18.6 +3.7 14.9 26 ESPN +19.3 +4.2 15.1 27 MTV +18.7 +4.3 14.4 28 A_E +18.7 +3.9 14.8 29 DISC +18.9 +3.9 15.0 30 H_N +19.5 +4.6 14.9 31 TNN +19.3 +3.8 15.5 32 TRAV +19.4 +3.8 15.6 33 USA +19.2 +3.8 15.4 34 PSN +18.9 +3.6 15.3 35 NOST +18.8 +4.3 14.5 36 DISN +19.5 +4.8 14.7 37 TOON +20.5 +5.2 15.3 38 LIFE +20.4 +4.6 15.8 39 AMC +19.7 +3.8 15.9 LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual I Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +12.9 dBmV Pass N' Delta Video Levels: 10.0 dB CH 2 37 7.6 dB Pass N Delta V /A: 6.5 dB CH 17 13.0 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 98 16.4 dB Pass 'Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Pass Conclusion: CP S� ,Ir� i P A S S II mss?_ 1, �y c��2,� /��L ��3 ss 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F.C.C. Color tests, May 9, 1995 Channel Mod. Diff. Gain Diff. Ph C-L Delay 2 8 168 3 8 3.3 0 4 13 -0.8 0 5 11 3.7 57 6 11 -3.6 60 9a -8"" .1 79 99 6 2 14 5 -1.9 108 15 8 2.3 49 16 4 -2.2 46 17 14 5.8 201 18 17 -2.1 59 19 16 -2.6 145 20 6 2.3 38 21 6 -2.4 60 22 11 -3 85 7 3 -11.9 43 8 2 -7 148 9 113 10 -7 2 91 11 17 6.8 99 12 13 3.5 -61 13 3 5 105 23 16 -4.2 48 24 17 -2.5 48 25 12 2 32 26 15 -2.5 41 27 5 2.5 63 28 7 4.6 30 29 15 -1.8 45 30 4 -2.8 -43 31 5 2.7 47 32 7 1.6 0 33 9 -4.4 37 34 5 1.8 52 35 6 2.5 52 36 4 2.6 50 37 6 1.9 55 38 5 2.4 55 39 6 1.8 49 40 6 2.2 32 41 4 2.1 62 All tests were completed using: Sencore VSA794 Sencore VIG791 Jerrold C6D -V APPENDIX B Re -Tests Performed 6/16/95 I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 110perator: J_J_JEROME ate: 06/16/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Type: Test Point Compensation: ,Area Amp ID: I Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB I AC Voltage: Chan Label II 2 CBUT 3 NCN 4 KOMO KING 6 CHEK 98 PPV 99 BOX II 14 HBO 15 SHOW 16 CMAX 1 17 CSPN 18 WTBS 19 QVC 20 TLC II 21 E &G 22 CNN 7 KIRO I 8 CHAN II 9 KCTS 10 CKVU II 11 KSTW 12 KVOS 13 KCPQ 23 FAM 11 24 CNBC 25 TNT 26 ESPN 11 27 CMT 28 A &E 29 DISC 30 H -N I 31 TNN 32 TRAV 33 USA II 34 PSNW 1 Video (dBmV) +2.1 +5.8 +5.5 +10.2 +8.9 +9.5 +12.5 +11.7 +12.3 +13.2 HI +13.3 HI +12.6 +13.1 +15.2 HI +13.4 HI +14.4 HI +14.3 HI +14.7 HI +15.8 HI +18.1 HI +16.9 HI +16.1 HI +17.4 HI +16.4 HI +16.7 HI +17.5 HI +18.0 HI +18.0 HI +17.9 HI +19.8 HI +17.9 HI +16.2 HI +18.5 HI +17.7 HI +17.9 HI File: 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Time: 11:33:10 18TH_END_O_LINE Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 18TH_ &_MCDONALD 20_DEEP In 2 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: 0 V DC Voltage (reg): 0.0 V Audio (dBmV) -12.1 -9.4 -8.0 -6.0 -5.7 -6.2 3.1 -4.5 -3.3 1.9 -2.7 2.2 1.8 -0.5 -4.5 +0.5 -1.3 -0.1 +0.4 +2.3 +1.3 +1.8 +2.5 -0.4 +3.4 +2.3 +3.3 +1.7 +3.9 +2.8 +2.3 +3.7 +2.3 +3.3 +1.6 Delta V/A (dB) 14.2 15.2 13.5 16.2 14.6 15.7 15.6 16.2 15.6 15.1 16.0 14.8 14.9 15.7 17.9 HI 13.9 15.6 14.8 15.4 15.8 15.6 14.3 14.9 16.8 13.3 15.2 14.7 16.3 14.0 17.0 15.6 12.5 16.2 14.4 16.3 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB Page 1 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval_: 1 Temp: +62 F (unreg): 0.0 V C/N Hum (dB) ERROR 10.0 +43.6 6.8 +43.0 6.0 +45.7 6.4 ERROR 6.5 +33.2 5.4 +45.5 6.0 +16.4 6.9 +15.0 13.5 +13.8 12.9 +45.0 3.9 +43.5 4.3 +45.0 4.1 +43.2 4.7 +46.2 4.8 +47.0 3.6 +48.3 3.7 +46.7 4.1 +46.8 4.3 +50.6 2.8 +47.1 4.2 ERROR 3.8 +45.0 3.2 +46.5 3.1 +44.8 2.7 +47.2 3.2 +45.8 3.2 +47.0 3.6 +46.4 3.1 +46.2 3.8 +43.5 3.2 +29.1 OVER +48.0 2.6 +45.3 3.1 +46.8 3.0 Mod 89.7 65.1 84.4 88.4 85.9 63.2 83.5 90.1 92.2 90.4 84.6 71.7 90.5 84.0 64.3 90.8 86.6 84.1 85.3 85.9 88.3 83.7 78.1 90.9 85.6 82.4 86.9 62.7 80.8 85.8 81.1 62.3 67.5 82.9 82.0 1 1 35 TCM 36 DISN 37 TOON II 38 LIFE 39 AMC 40 2SPN 1 41 NICK 46 TEST WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 "Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Chan Label Video Audio Delta V/A C/N (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) (dB) +17.4 HI +3.0 14.4 +45.7 +18.9 HI +2.2 16.7 +47.1 +17.5 HI +3.5 14.0 +45.8 +18.6 HI +1.9 16.7 +49.9 +17.8 HI +1.4 16.4 +46.6 +16.8 HI +0.2 16.6 +45.6 +14.1 HI -6.4 20.5 HI +49.8 +11.4 -8.2 19.6 HI ERROR LIMIT CHECK I Min Video Carrier Level: Max Delta Video Levels: Min Delta V /A: I ax Delta V /A: ax Delta Adjacent Channels: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB ,Conclusion: F A I L ,Reviewed: Date: Actual CH 2 +2.1 dBmV CH 2 29 17.7 dB CH 31 12.5 dB CH 41 20.5 dB Hum Mod 3.1 85.7 2.7 87.6 2.6 86.7 2.8 88.1 2.9 70.7 2.7 87.2 2.7 81.7 2.3 62.5 Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail 1 lk AVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 1 odel: 3SR Serial No:_5023129 Operator: J_J_JEROME Date: 06/16/95 Location Name: Location Type: Trunk Test Point Type: Bridger Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB L;ea: Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB File: 10TH &_N Interval: 1 Time: 11:13:24 Temp: +59 F 20_DEEP In 2 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: +0.0 dB +0.0 dB Cal Date: 06/01/95 ,AC Voltage: 0 V DC Voltage (reg): 0.0 V (unreg): 0.0 V Chan Label Video Audio Delta V/A C/N Hum Mod II (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) (dB) 2 CBUT +6.9 -7.8 14.7 +42.9 3.5 89.6 3 NCN +8.4 -5.6 14.0 4 KOMO +10.4 -4.5 14.9 5 KING +12.8 -2.1 14.9 +45_9 1.8 88.5 6 CHEK +13.2 -2.2 15.4 98 PPV +14.1 -2.3 16.4 +33.3 0.9 62.8 99 BOX +15.7 +0.7 15.0 14 HBO +16.0 -0.3 16.3 15 SHOW +16.5 +0.8 15.7 16 CMAX +16.8 +1.5 15.3 II 17 CSPN +16.8 +1.5 15.3 18 WTBS +16.6 +1.0 15.6 19 QVC +17.2 +2.0 15.2 20 TLC +17.5 +2.4 15.1 21 E &G +17.9 +0.5 17.4 HI 22 CNN +18.1 HI +2.8 15.3 I 7 KIRO +18.3 HI +3.2 15.1 8 CHAN +18.9 HI +5.3 13.6 9 KCTS +21.3 HI +4.9 16.4 10 CKVU +22.6 HI +4.8 17.8 HI I 11 KSTW +20.5 HI +5.4 15.1 +47.8 2.4 86.6 12 KVOS +20.8 HI +5.8 15.0 13 KCPQ +20.5 HI +5.1 15.4 11 23 FAM +20.4 HI +4.0 16.4 24 CNBC +20.5 HI +5.3 15.2 25 TNT +20.5 HI +5.9 14.6 26 ESPN +21.2 HI +5.0 16.2 II 27 CMT +20.9 HI +5.8 15.1 28 A &E +21.3 HI +5.9 15.4 29 DISC +21.2 HI +5.3 15.9 11 30 H -N +21.1 HI +5.5 15.6 +45.5 1.8 80.5 31 TNN +21.1 HI +5.8 15.3 32 TRAV +20.8 HI +5.6 15.2 33 USA +20.6 HI +5.3 15.3 1 34 PSNW +20.4 HI +5.0 15.4 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 11 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Chan Label Video II (dBmV) 35 TCM +20.2 HI 36 DISN +20.3 HI 37 TOON +21.0 HI I 38 LIFE +21.0 HI 39 AMC +21.3 HI 40 2SPN +20.9 HI 41 NICK +19.4 HI 46 TEST +12.4 LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: Max Delta Video Levels: Min Delta V /A: II Max Delta V /A: Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dB) +4.4 15.8 +5.1 15.2 +5.2 15.8 +5.5 15.5 +5.6 15.7 +4.5 16.4 +2.9 16.5 -5.1 17.5 HI Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB "Reviewed: Date: C/N (dB) +45.1 0.5 69.0 +44.8 0.8 63.4 Actual CH 2 +6.9 dBmV CH 2 10 15.7 dB CH 8 13.6 dB CH 10 17.8 dB Hum Mod Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Conclusion: F A I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C Northland's Follow -Up NORTHLAND GIBLE TELEVISION June 23, 1995 Lon Hurd 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants 502 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 Dear Lon. Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Thank you, Dan Withers Regional Manager 725 East First Port Angeles, Washington 98362 (206) 452 -8466 1- 800 244 -7591 FAX (206) 457 -5901 Enclosed for your files are two new reports from the test point locations that you and Jim Jerome tested last week. Jim discovered an automatic module in a trunk station that was not properly adjusted. After he adjusted it, he re- tested that area and these are the results. perator: J_J_JEROME ate: "'06/23/95 ocation Name: Ilk ocation Type: est Point Type: Test Point Compensation: L rea Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB II AC Voltage: Chan Label I 2 3 4 II 6 98 I99 14 15 16 II 17 18 19 I20 21 22 7 II 8 9 10 II 11 12 13 23 124 25 26 27 1128 29 I 30 31 32 33 11 34 1 k AVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 1 odel: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 CBUT NCN KOMO KING CHEK PPV BOX HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC TLC E &G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN CMT A &E DISC H -N TNN TRAV USA PSNW 54 V DC Voltage (reg): 24.2 V (unreg): 30.5 V Video (dBmV) +14.1 +15.3 +16.4 +17.6 +17.7 +18.3 +18.7 +18.1 +17.5 +18.8 +18.7 +18.0 +18.8 +18.7 +18.5 +18.6 +18.6 +19.0 +19.8 +19.2 +19.6 +19.9 +19.7 +19.7 +19.6 +19.8 +20.0 +19.5 +19.6 +20.0 +20.0 +19.7 +19.2 +19.4 +19.3 File: POST_L_HURD_ Time: 09:44:43 10TH_ &_N_STREET Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 10TH_ &_N_STREET 17_DEEP In 3 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: Audio (dBmV) -1.0 +0.1 +1.3 +2.8 +2.5 +2.8 +3.3 +1.8 +3.1 +3.4 +3.1 +2.5 +3.5 +3.4 +2.5 +3.3 +3.9 +3.7 +3.2 +3.1 +4.6 +5.1 +4.0 +3.6 +4.7 +4.7 +4.5 +4.6 +4.5 +4.4 +4.0 +4.1 +3.9 +3.8 +3.5 Delta V/A (dB) 15.1 15.2 15.1 14.8 15.2 15.5 15.4 16.3 14.4 15.4 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.3 16.0 15.3 14.7 15.3 16.6 16.1 15.0 14.8 15.7 16.1 14.9 15.1 15.5 14.9 15.1 15.6 16.0 15.6 15.3 15.6 15.8 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 1 Temp: +58 F C/N Hum Mod (dB) +45.7 5.5 86.4 +46.1 2.4 68.0 +44.3 5.5 83.9 +46.3 1.5 87.9 +46.9 2.6 85.0 +46.5 1.6 62.3 +48.6 1.0 83.1 90.4 89.4 91.0 +44.3 1.6 84.0 +46.8 1.1 75.4 +46.6 1.3 90.3 +46.7 2.7 78.4 +46.9 2.9 64.2 +47.0 0.6 89.4 +48.4 1.7 88.3 +48.7 1.4 80.6 +47.2 2.3 85.9 +48.9 2.3 88.2 +47.5 1.2 86.9 +48.0 3.5 86.5 +47.1 3.0 76.5 +46.1 0.9 91.0 +46.4 0.9 85.9 +47.8 0.9 82.3 +48.8 1.1 87.1 +46.5 1.0 62.5 +46.8 0.9 76.0 +47.3 1.0 85.7 +45.3 1.7 80.2 +43.7 0.9 82.7 +47.0 0.7 67.1 +47.7 0.7 82.8 +45.8 0.9 82.6 i Ir odel: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 11 35 TCM 36 DISN 37 TOON 11 38 LIFE 39 AMC 40 2SPN 41 NICK 1 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Chan Label Video (dBmV) +19.1 +18.9 +19.3 +19.6 +19.5 +19.5 +18.8 IMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: ax Delta Video Levels: in Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dB) +3.3 15.8 +3.8 15.1 +4.1 15.2 +4.4 15.2 +4.1 15.4 +3.5 16.0 +2.2 16.6 Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Actual CH 2 +14.1 dBmV CH 2 29 5.9 dB CH 15 14.5 dB CH 41 16.6 dB Date: C/N (dB) +47.7 +47.6 +47.5 +48.7 +46.9 +48.6 +47.4 Hum Mod 0.6 86.3 0.8 87.5 0.8 86.6 0.3 88.8 0.5 70.7 0.9 86.8 0.8 82.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass P A S S I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 1 Model: 3SR Serial 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 11 0perator: J_J_JEROME Date: 06/21/95 1Area: Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB 2 CBUT 3 NCN 4 KOMO I 5 KING 6 CHEK 98 PPV 99 BOX 1 14 HBO 15 SHOW 16 CMAX Ill 17 CSPN II 18 WTBS 19 QVC 20 TLC I 21 E &G 22 CNN 7 KIRO I 8 CHAN 9 KCTS 10 CKVU I 11 KSTW 12 KVOS 13 KCPQ 23 FAM II 24 CNBC 25 TNT 26 ESPN 1127 CMT 28 A &E 29 DISC 30 H -N 131 TNN 32 TRAV 33 USA 34 PSNW 1 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Type: Test Point Compensation: I AC Voltage: Chan Label Video (dBmV) +10.6 +12.0 +13.7 +16.3 +16.6 +15.9 +16.4 +16.3 +15.6 +17.0 +16.9 +16.4 +17.1 +17.0 +16.8 +16.9 +17.2 +17.0 +18.3 +15.3 +18.2 +18.9 +17.7 +15.4 +17.8 +18.4 +18.2 +18.5 +19.1 +19.0 +18.7 +18.4 +18.3 +17.6 +17.4 File: IMPROVED_L_HURD -Time: 14:48:49 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 18TH_ &_MCDONALD 20_DEEP In 2 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: 57 V DC Voltage (reg): 24.3 V Audio (dBmV) 4.1 2.1 0.6 +1.3 +0.9 +0.9 +1.5 -0.7 +0.9 +1.4 +1.2 +0.7 +1.8 +1.5 +0.6 +1.6 +2.1 +1.8 +2.3 +4.1 +2.7 +3.9 +0.8 +1.2 +2.8 +3.4 +3.0 +3.4 +3.9 +2.8 +2.7 +2.9 +2.7 +2.1 +1.6 Delta V/A (dB) 14.7 14.1 14.3 15.0 15.7 15.0 14.9 17.0 14.7 15.6 15.7 15.7 15.3 15.5 16.2 15.3 15.1 15.2 16.0 11.2 15.5 15.0 16.9 14.2 15.0 15.0 15.2 15.1 15.2 16.2 16.0 15.5 15.6 15.5 15.8 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB Interval: 1 Temp: +62 F (unreg): 28.7 V C/N Hum Mod (dB) +45.2 2.5 93.6 +45.6 3.0 68.1 +43.8 5.1 83.6 +46.4 2.5 88.2 +47.0 3.1 85.4 +45.2 1.5 62.9 +48.0 1.1 62.9 90.2 89.9 90.7 +46.9 1.5 84.4 +46.5 1.1 72.7 +45.2 0.8 90.2 +45.7 2.1 80.8 +46.0 3.8 64.6 +46.1 1.0 90.2 +48.1 1.2 86.6 +48.7 1.4 89.5 +48.2 2.0 87.7 +46.5 4.8 91.5 +47.3 2.3 85.4 +48.3 3.0 84.4 +47.2 3.0 75.9 +44.2 1.2 90.3 +45.3 1.4 85.8 +48.2 1.3 82.2 +46.0 1.2 87.1 +47.2 1.2 62.6 +48.3 1.2 81.1 +47.1 1.0 83.0 +44.9 1.4 80.4 +46.7 0.9 83.3 +48.4 1.3 67.4 +47.5 1.3 82.6 +46.6 1.2 84.0 1 odel: 3SR Chan Label Video (dBmV) II 35 TCM +17.1 36 DISN +16.6 37 TOON +16.8 38 LIFE +17.0 II 39 AMC +15.6 40 2SPN +15.7 "41 NICK +11.7 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: ax Delta Video Levels: in Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: ax Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: Audio (dBmV) +1.1 +1.3 +1.6 -0.3 -0.1 -1.4 -8.6 Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Delta V/A (dB) 16.0 15.3 15.2 17.3 HI 15.7 17.1 HI 20.3 HI Date: C/N (dB) +47.0 +46.0 +47.6 +48.9 +46.2 +48.5 +48.5 Actual CH 2 +10.6 dBmV CH 2 28 8.5 dB CH 10 11.2 dB CH 41 20.3 dB Hum 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 Mod 85.9 87.2 86.8 89.2 62.8 87.0 81.5 Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail F A I L 4.17 C.t jf6tni.t Cipintiltarits 10 •Local GoiVerttAtertt Specializing in Cable Televi Franchising: Coi rriunmty Ne .Asse .ts` il tr c i.sing Ord•inancerPreparat ;i.on:. c s� ',Franchise 'Administration Evaiiiatiptf sq atiation A./antic; SOutlivv;■si. Seatde..% Washington, (296) '1 FAX .(206)‘9:32-42r1.1 City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report INTRODUCTION This report covers major cable television oversight functions performed for your City in 1992. It also contains comparative statistics in such areas as consumer satisfaction, comparative rates and other matters of concern during last year together with highlights of particular interest. Undoubtedly the area of greatest importance to Port Angeles is the channel realignment and price restructuring that took place over the last year. This issue along with what other communities are doing will be discussed later in the report when we speak about local issues. Perhaps of equal impact upon the City of Port Angeles' relationship with its cable operator will be the impact of the new cable act passed last fall, but whose effect will not be felt at least until April of 1993. In order to make this important information available to interested members of the staff in a number of ways we have presented a somewhat detailed analysis of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, followed by a timetable of anticipated implementation of several major items as well as a brief listing of principal features of the legislation. We will, of course, provide bulletins to you during the year of ongoing events. At this stage it is impossible to measure the extent of involvement the City will need to take in applications to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for rate regulation certification, or perhaps more remotely, in rate roll -back petitions. However it appears that our Firm will be able to handle the rate regulation requirements for basic cable, converters and installation charges as well as tangential areas such as consumer protection standards, program change approval, access cost itemization monitoring and technical specification measurements under our existing agreement with your City. 1 341 Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report NATIONAL OVERVIEW 1992 saw the passage of the most far reaching Federal legislation since the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. Although the law was enacted on October 6, 1992 the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992's impact will not be felt fully for some time. Many of the provisions of The Act such as rate regulation will not be put in place until such time as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues specific regulations. Other provisions of the Act (indeed the entire Act itself) particularly the must -carry and retransmission sections are under legal attack by a myriad of entities on the cable side. Nevertheless, the new Cable Act will present major challenges to local government in the coming year. Many of these will be interpretation and implementation of FCC rulings. It will be necessary for local government to have in place new oversight capabilities primarily in the area of review of ancillary enforcement of equipment charges and program changes as well as the more meaningful mechanisms to monitor rate regulation of basic channels. Additionally, there will be still other problems, such as defensive measures that should be taken by local government to explain franchising cost itemizations by your cable operator. In order to avoid misunderstandings some sort of common ground must be reached with the franchisee to allay misinterpretations of what is intended by the Federal Act. The primary concern is a section of the Act which will allow a cable operator to itemize on its statement all expenses it has contributed to access programing and institutional networks. As far as the major regulatory thrust of S -12, it must be understood that while a community has the authority (upon application to the FCC) to regulate rates, it will 2 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report be applicable only to basic, i.e. the lowest tier, of programing. There will undoubtedly be confusion in the minds of subscribers as to the extent of the City's regulatory authority. As the City of Port Angeles has found, this is particularly troublesome, as cable operators begin to reduce the basic channels only to local signals and access programing and place other programing into a higher unregulated tier. While at this time the FCC has not issued specific guidelines for local government to determine the criteria of acceptable basic cable rates it now appears that the maximum allowable rates will probably be based upon a combination of average rates in a competitive market combined with other national medians. Under the scenario that is apparent at this time the FCC will issue benchmark rates rather than a formula based upon cost plus mark -up or return on investment criteria. However, at this early stage of the hearings on this issue it is impossible to predict how definitive these guidelines will turn out to be. One of the obvious questions is how will the FCC provide for changes in operating costs as a result of its own rulings. Additionally, there will be a six -month period following the issuance of FCC regulations that a City may apply to the FCC for a roll -back of existing rates that appear to be unwarranted based upon the Commission's bench marks. This appears to be a cumbersome procedure which our Firm will discuss with you in greater detail at the appropriate time. 3 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report SPECIFIC ISSUES The following are the more important points of the new Federal legislation. Again several cautions must be considered: First that many of these implementing regulations will not be forthcoming for several months; secondly, several of the sections, notably in the area of retransmission consent and must carry, are under legal attack; and thirdly, that the potential make up of the FCC itself under a new administration will be changed and very possibly the direction of enforcement may be pointed differently. 1. Basic Rate Regulation by City Local government must file for certification by the Commission establishing, among other qualifiers, that its cable operator does not have effective competition (as defined by the FCC). It appears to your Consultants that at this time the City of Port Angeles would qualify under the no effective competition standards. Additionally it is mandated that the franchising authority have sufficient personnel and adequate procedures to provide for the views of interested parties. These qualifications would be evidenced by the retention of our services. If the FCC denies such certification a City may reapply under certain conditions which are too complex to be restated here. 2. Other Reeulatory Responsibilities of the City A franchising authority may impose more stringent consumer and technical standards than those which will be forthcoming from the FCC. However, the Act does not address the issue of FCC standards being automatically imposed or whether they can be imposed during the term of an already granted franchise. In addition to basic rate regulation, local government may regulate the prices charged by a cable operator for converters and installation. 4 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report 3. Riehts reserved to the FCC Over and above the rights of a franchising authority discussed above there will be other restraints placed upon the cable industry other than those of local government. Among these is a yet ill- defined responsibility for seeing that other programing tiers are not charged at "excessive rates that subscribers are not to be obliged to purchase other tiers of service in order to obtain another level of programing, that cable companies may not market a "negative option" (as in TCI's Encore selling) and that cable operators, if requested by a City, give thirty days' notice of a programing change. In addition, the FCC will put in place procedures which will limit the number of subscribers any cable company can serve; forbid cable programers from discrimination in furnishing their services to other program distributors; restrict fast sell and buy of cable systems; prohibit cross ownership of broadcast and cable operations to some degree; place a burden upon operators to monitor indecent programs on public access channels; charge cable companies to provide the means to make VCR's compatible with its broadcast signals and to allow, under certain circumstances, a franchising authority to deny the sale of a system within its jurisdiction to another cable company. Additionally the Commission will look at the problem of who owns the cable wiring inside a residence when cable service is discontinued. 4. Must -Carry and Retransmission Consent A cable operator must either carry all local broadcast stations (realigning to the format of 1985) or to pay, in one form or another, for the rights to retransmit off -air broadcast signals. Whatever option the cable operator chooses it must live with for three years. To the cable industry this is the most onerous burden and the one 5 3 -1 Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report which is under the most ferocious legal barrage. It is likely, however, to be a tempest in a teapot. 5. Renewal Procedure Practices Comparatively few changes are mandated in this area. Local Government will, however, have immunity from monetary damages in an action brought by an unsuccessful applicant for a franchise. 6 341 Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report The following schedule indicates the proposed dates for implementation by the FCC of key items in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. February 2,1993 I. Regulations regarding indecent programs on leased access channels. Timetable for Implementation of Ma Regulatory Reauirements by the FCC of the Cable Act of 1992 (This refers to leased commercial channels not PEG Access channels.) April 5.1993 I. Regulations establishing guidelines for local government of basic cable rates. II. Reg ulations concerning a cable operator's obligation to carry all stations (must- carry) or obtain permission (which may payment) to retransmit local broadcasts. III. Establish customer service standards. October 5,1993 I. Establish procedure for cable operator to file annual financial reports to aid in enforcing rate regulation. II. Establish limits on the ownership of cable operations in terms of number of subscribers allowed. III. Promulgate technical standards for cable systems. 7 341 Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report Brief Summary of Maior Features of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 I. Franchise Authority Basic Rate Regulation Effective competition criteria File certificate with FCC Effective 30 days from date unless FCC disapproves FCC may revoke if regulation not in conformance with FCC rate regulations Franchising authority right to apply for recertification II. Other Regulatory Functions FCC to ensure other rates (except single premium or PPV) are not unreasonable Franchising authority to regulate installation and converter rates Negative option (Encore) not permitted Subscriber not required to purchase other tier except basic as "buy through" III. Customer Service Standards Franchising authority may require more stringent regulations Franchising authority may require cable operator to provide 30 day notice of programing change IV. Technical Standards FCC to establish or periodically update Franchising authority may request FCC waiver to impose stricter parameters V. Renewal Formalizes notification from cable operator to franchising authority with six months to commence Effective acquiescence removed Franchising authority has immunity from monetary damage in law suits challenging franchising authority's right to regulate 8 3 Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report VI. Miscellaneous Rights of a Franchising Authority Prohibit buy out of another system in and by cable operator holding another franchise VII. Regulations Imposed by the FCC Directly Restrains cable programer price discrimination to other video suppliers Limit number of subscribers a Multiple System Operator can reach Cable operator cannot resell within three years of buying a system Ensures technical compatibility of VCR's and cable system FCC will provide regulations to enable a cable operator to prohibit obscene material on PEG access channel Disposition of home wiring after subscriber discontinues VIII. Other Maior Regulations Not Responsibility of the Franchising Authority Must -carry (carriage of local T.V. stations) Broadcasters choose must -carry or retransmission consent rights for a three -year period IX. Cable Operator Privileges Right to itemize all PEG costs on subscriber statements 9 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report LOCAL Northland Cable Television rearranged their programing tiers this year adding an expanded basic package. In doing this they also moved some of the programing from one tier to another. As has been well publicized these changes were received with a great deal of dissatisfaction. Our Office alone received a total of 94 calls of which nearly all stated their displeasure. Our Office had a number of meetings and phone conversations with Northland management and it appears that they had only positive intentions when they made the changes and that they were actually surprised at the amount of negative calls received by the City and our staff. The percentage of subscribers who signed up for the new tier is 49.8 There is no way to know for sure, however, the number of subscribers who signed up because it was the only way to keep their favorite programs, or because it was actually viewed as a positive programing option. Northland conducted an informal survey which they say showed that more than 90% of those requesting to sign up for the new tier were positive about the changes. We conducted a review of all franchise documents and state and Federal laws and it was apparent that there was very little the City could do about the changes even if they wished. Since the time Northland made these changes and following the passage of the new cable legislation, a majority of the cable systems in the region have either retiered their services or at least announced their intention to do so. We will continue to monitor the changes made by Northland and other operators and let the City know how their operation compares to others in the state and the Puget Sound area. Some of this information will be supplied later in this report. 10 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report SYSTEM EVALUATION As a consultant to the City it has been our responsibility to ascertain that Port Angeles' system remains in conformance with local, state and federal laws pertaining to the operation of cable television systems. In doing so we are continually monitoring the system, using customer service calls to our office to tip us off of any possible problems, and following those up to ensure there are not any trends that may be indicating more than individual problems. Additionally we complete a more comprehensive evaluation of the system on an annual basis. This evaluation is broken down into two segments; the first being purely technical, and the second on the operational aspects of the system. Technical One method of assessing quality is through measurements of signal strength (measured in decibels— abbreviated "db at various key locations. This may be termed a signal intensity measurement and to a large degree determines, along with other ratios, whether the picture on the television screen is "snow" free and is well defined. The FCC minimum requirement for signal strength at a subscriber's set is 1.25 db at the point of entry. Every measurement taken by our staff, interpolated for signal loss over the length of the drop, far exceeded these minimum requirements. In addition we made a "sweep" of major portions of the systems to attempt to locate points of signal leakage. No significant readings indicating excessive leakage were discovered. In addition to our unannounced "audit the cable operators are required by the FCC to also make such tests on a periodic basis. Although it is essential to check a cable operator's conformance against Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards; the results of such tests can not, in themselves, be considered as prima facia evidence that the operator is necessarily 1 1 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report providing quality transmission. FCC rules are generally lower than commonly accepted industry standards and such technical rules are surprisingly very few. The operative section of the FCC Rules and Regulations are Part 76 Subpart K- 76.605 and it is to these requirements that our review was directed. These rules are essentially on a pass /fail basis. The two more important measurements are first to insure that a minimum strength signal is received at the television set, and the second a measurement of signal leakage. The need for the former is obvious, and leakage of signal in the latter case can cause many problems including picture distortion of other receivers. Operations In conducting the review of the operational aspects of the cable system, we have found it most effective to look at the complaints received directly by the operator from the subscribers. We look at the type and total number of complaints and compare this to regional averages from various resources. This allows us to determine if there are any major areas of concern. On the following page we have presented a breakdown of the service calls received by the operator for one month. The graph shows the specific types of calls received in percentage form. Following that is an average percentage of subscribers requesting service calls from Northland monthly compared to regional averages. 12 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report Service Call Comparison Drop 7 Converter 13 Trunk and Distribution 18 Customer Education 15 Miscellaneous 3 Total 56 Ratio of Service Calls to Number of Subscribers Drop El Converter Trunk Dist Customer Ed. Miscellaneous Northland .86% Regional 1.96% This figure does not include unfounded calls that have been included in the regional figure. 13 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1992 Annual Report FRANCHISE FEES One of the functions of your consultants is to insure the collection of proper franchise fees. To assist in these collections 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants has developed franchise fee payment forms. These forms provide a "paper trail" for audits as well as furnish a convenient double check of units and dollars. Port Angeles now collects 4% of the cable operator's revenues. These monies are paid on a semi annual basis and are reviewed by your consultants for accuracy. Any discrepancies are subject to a complete audit by our firm. It appears that income thus received by the City of Port Angeles in the calendar year 1992 was $78,835. We estimate that for 1993, anticipating an increase in franchise fees as well as minor rate increases that the figure may well exceed $90,000. COMPARATIVE RATES AND SERVICE As reported in the past we feel it might be of interest to you to see how the City of Port Angeles' rates (effective January 1, 1993) and services compare to those of other cities within the state. The following chart furnishes this information. NEWSLETTER In case you have not yet read the last four issues of our newsletter the Municipal Cable Television Regulator, we have attached them for your convenience. 14 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants NM NM INI Ell NM NM I I NM I MI MN JURISDICTION Seattle Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Des Moines Normandy Park Kent Renton Auburn Tukwila King County Kitsap County Bremerton Everett Port Angeles Marysville Tacoma OPERATOR PRESENT UPGRADE ACCESS CHANNELS ACCESS EQUIPMENT CHANNELS STATUS Multiple Viacom Viacom Viacom TCI TCI TCI TCI TCI TCI Multiple Multiple TCI Viacom Northland TCI TCI 34 -38 34 34 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 34 -38 36 -37 36 34 33 36 36 (1) (1) 3 (1) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (3) (3) Present 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 (3) 1 1 (1) Still under negotiation. (3) Area upgrade. (2) Within 48 months at least (trigger mechanism). (4) Available but unused. Comparison of Features Regional Jurisdictions Future Present Future Present Future Present Future (1) Yes (1) No 3 Yes (1) (3) (4) No (1) No (1) (1) No (1) (1) No (1) (1) No (1) (1) No (1) (1) No (1) 1 Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes Refranchising completed. Yes (1) (1) Yes No (1) No Yes (3) May Share No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes I -NETS BASIC SENIOR DISCOUNTS No a) No No (1) (1) $4.50 (1) (4) $4.50 $4.50 No (1) $4.50 $4.50 (1) No 30% 30% No 20% 20% (2) No (1) (2) $2.00 (1) (2) 30% (1) (2) No (1) (1) No (1) (1) No (1) No No No No $4.50 $4.50 No 15% 15% No No No Yes 30% 30% Cable Communications Consultants The Municipal Cable REGULATOR ISSUE 2 VOLUME 15 APRIL 1992 1 From the Editor's Desk: 9 REQUIEM We wish we could stop writing about the famous or infamous, depending upon one's viewpoint, S -12, which passed through the Senate the other day on its way to oblivion in the House of Representatives. Oblivion because it will be either so truncated in the House that its genesis will become unknown, or it will not be reported out at all, or if it does get through a joint committee President Bush will veto it. So why do we keep on singing this dirge? Because, as we were so often told by our teachers we can learn by the examples of others. ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CATV Newsletter $10.00 It may be appropriate therefore to examine S -12 not from a point of reacting or anticipating that any particular feature may or may not actually become a law, but to obtain a sense of what Congress has been lead to believe appropriate to the regulation, non- or otherwise of the cable industry. Thumbs up or thumbs down has rebecome a salute of our day (although unlike the Romans at their circuses these gestures will not save nor condemn these portions of the legislation —more is the pity) and the following are our views of the good and the bad, the good sense and the senseless of S -12 as issued from the Senate. In no particular order they are: Rate Regulation —The heart of this section is disheartening and heartening both at the same time. A franchising authority may regulate the rates for "the lowest price tier of service subscribed to by at least 30 percent of the cable system's customers This would prevent the artifice of programing and pricing the lowest price tier to a point where virtually no one will subscribe to it. From this high point however things go rapidly down hill. The crafty hand of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes itself felt by writing itself into virtually every significant step in rate regulatory functions. For instance a city or county would have to make a written request to authorize local rate regulation to the FCC which in its infinite wisdom will apparently determine if the local laws are "in conformance" with its "guidelines" and if the City will "provide the level of protection to consumers required by the commission and that it carries out the national policy established in this title High sounding verbiage, but experience has shown that local government has the consumer's interests at heart a lot more than the federal government. There is a flip side to the FCC's involvement of course. Just in case it hasn't covered all the bases, a cable operator may complain to the Commission that a local government is doing dastardly things to it in its attempt to regulate rates and may call upon its big brother for help. In the words of this rewrite of the present Cable Act "If the Commission, after the franchising authority has had a reasonable opportunity to comment, determines that the local laws and regulations are not in conformance the Commission shall revoke such authorization." Considering the FCC's perceived bias in face of the cable industry, there should be no surprise which way the thumb should point on this one. 1 There is more about rate regulation. The Congress imposes upon the Commission "rate procedures, standards, requirements, and guidelines for the establishment of reasonable rates charged by a cable operator not subject to effective competition While generally we would show a thumbs down on such wide discretionary power being awarded to the FCC, we give it a thumbs up for one reason —the Commission is charged to do all of this "within 120 days after the date of enactment Hooray for the 120 days. The present Cable Act, to say the kindest, was deficient in spelling out substance. This year's crop of Senators have at least improved upon this lack. In discussing appeals by a franchising authority one of the determining factors is including an increase which results from a change in service tiers or a change in the per channel rate paid by subscribers This at least recognizes that it is not the rate alone but what one gets for that rate that is equally significant. Finally in the rate regulation section the definition of effective competition is addressed in somewhat more realistic terms than the FCC's present criteria. This act, were there life breathed into it, would require only that 30 percent or more of households passed by cable along with other rather unnecessary stipulations stringently increasing the homes served by DBS (Direct Broadcast Systems) or SMATV (Satellite Master Antennae Television) systems and similar services to qualify for having no effective competition. As in most of messages from the Hill, this one too has its aspects of impracticality. For example take a look at this: "A cable operator shall have a rate structure, for the provision of cable service that is uniform throughout the geographic area in which cable service is provided over its cable system Why? Things begin to get a bit clearer in discussions of customer service. The Bill would require that the FCC set up customer service standards. So far so good, but it gets better as expressed in this heartwarming phrase: 'Notwithstanding nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent the enforcement of any municipal ordinance or agreement concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission The section goes on to allow a due process appeal by the operator but it at least puts the shoe on the other foot. Many of us believe that the franchise renewal sections of the existing Cable Act need the most rewriting. While the august members of the Senate Committee carry on for several pages on the consideration of Public Broadcast Stations (PBS), less than a single page, and that dwelling largely upon rather inconsequential word deletions, is taken up with franchise renewal. Our award for this section is omission rather than commission. However, in an area tangentially associated with cable television franchise renewals the Senate struck a blow for liberty by limiting local government liability in the case of First Amendment violation charges. In the area of technical standards (not to be confused with customer standards) the cities get a rather mixed bag. The FCC is given one year to establish standards of signal quality and after that local government is told to keep hands off such standards. However, as many of you are aware, it may be that NATOA, the NCTA (National Cable Television Association) and the FCC have reached a common agreement for such standards. Our rating is for the practical application of the policy promulgated. Some of the other sections of S -12 may be intrusive. For example, the Bill would allow the cable operator to label everything but the kitchen sink as payment to the city. This would include not only franchise fees and other taxes, but also the cable operators' contribution to access support or the use of such channels. Just wait until the creative bookkeepers of the cablers get hold of this one. Be prepared to hear city telephones ringing off the hook. 4, It is only fair and equitable that having run through this brief study that S-12 in toto be given a thumbs up or down rating. Please see the figure on the left for such appraisal. There are, of course, many other sections of S -12 than these few points. As far as the cable industry is concerned probably all of the items reviewed above pale in comparison to three big money issues which we have not even mentioned. There are those that pertain to retransmission 2 consent, compulsory license, and must carry provisions. We have reserved our aching digit for only those more directly the concern of a city. Besides we may have to start all over again if and when the House Bill, HR3560 is thrown into the arena. f *F.F.R.F. 1 1 I 1 A PRIMER We know that you know and you know we know you know. Nevertheless those of us associated with cable television regulation by local governments often live in a world of unintelligible jargon to others. This phenomenon is not unique to our occupation and is not even as obscure as a short order cook's. Our vernacular is composed of unequal parts of engineering gibberish, legal mushmouth, social pretentiousness, trendy slang, and a large portion of abbreviations and acronyms. Perhaps some of you know that we publish a special edition for participants of the annual NATOA (National Association of Television Officers and Advisors) conference that give some tongue -in -cheek definitions. For those who really want to know there are several reliable sources and our special edition is not one of them. Jones Dictionary of Cable Terms is an excellent reference book of strictly technical terms. Several of the NATOA and NLC (National League of Cities) publications shed light on the idiom. If worst comes to worst one can always read the Cable Act. "These are not meant to be all inclusive or subject to technical scrutiny, but merely as a short and fast method of explanation to a lay person." The trouble is, once one gets the language down pat there is a tendency to use it in ordinary conversations which can be confusing at the check -out counter of the supermarket. This may not be important when purchasing lettuce, but can get one in trouble speaking to the boss. Elected officials have a lot of other things on their minds other than cable television. A phrase such as "bi- directional with interactive and addressable capability" may well draw the famous "who are you" stare. This is For Franchise Renewal File 3,. particularly acute at the time of cable refranchising when the executive branch is drawn into such discussions more regularly. The following are some very basic simple descriptions of some of the elements of discussion in franchise renewal. These are not meant to be all inclusive or subject to technical scrutiny, but merely as a short and fast method of explanation to a lay person. Even if you can't use these at city halls they might be good to work into the conversation at a party when asked "what do you do for a living Access Channels The Cable Act speaks to the concept of reserving separate broadcast channels specifically for the uses of the franchising authority. The Act somewhat preemptively divides these channels into: Public Access This is envisioned as a local forum, a soapbox so to speak, for various types of expressions of a community. This spectrum would conceivably embrace such diverse activities as Little League baseball games, garden exhibits, and production of local cultural functions such as concerts and theatrical productions. It may be used as well, as a cautionary note, for representation of various political positions either within or without the community. Educational Access Many communities use this channel as a conduit to broadcast adult educational efforts or any educational items of interest to subscribers. These programs are generally under the auspices of community colleges or local school systems. Government Access The more appropriate title of this category of access broadcasting is to preface the word "Government" with "local Many communities use this medium to cablecast such areas as council meetings and various committee functions. Although the Cable Act loosely gathers these together under the acronym "PEG" (Public, Educational, and Government) the divisions are not as distinct in reality as suggested by the Act. A city could, for example, choose to have all these functions carried on a single access channel, or to take the other extreme, elect to have multiple channels for the various access uses. Control of access channels varies with a community. One of the most common methods is through a non profit citizens group which may receive funding for continued operation from the city (diversion of some franchise fees), from the cable operator, donations, or from various types of grants. Community Bulletin Board This concept is the means to transmit messages on one of the access channels dedicated for local government purposes. The equipment required is a device known as a character generator. This instrument is capable of sending alpha and numeric information throughout the cable systems. There is no particular skill required to operate its computer -type keyboard. A city may wish to locate this equipment at the city hall to transmit repetitive messages of municipal affairs as well as being available to residents of the community to advise of functions applicable to a specific group. Institutional Networks (I Nets) These may be thought of as a point -to- point system or as closed circuit channels, i.e., channels dedicated to a limited audience as opposed to broadcast channels received by all subscribers such as the access channels discussed above. There are two primary users of such a system. One is for educational purposes. This entails a reserved channel whereby a school system can broadcast educational programs exclusively for reception by the individual schools (or, if appropriate, by libraries). These types of programs may be 4 locally originated or the product of various national educational bodies that make such programs available. They are received by the schools either by a cable specific to this purpose or by a scrambled over the air signal which can be decoded by the receiving institution. Another application of this technology is for private communication with city offices such as police stations and fire houses. Many communities use these systems to, for example, transmit training films or other information of immediacy to the various units. Depending upon the projected use of such systems they can be made "addressable" which means that the various facilities may communicate with each other on a "downstream /upstream" basis. Data Transmission Cable wires (and more effectively fiber optic cable) may be used to convey data transmissions in much the same way that telephone lines are used. Data may also be transmitted over the air by use of microwave type signals. There are large commercial applications of this type of system and its use may be appropriate in city functions. These descriptions are barely the ABC's of non entertainment features of cable television which may be made available to a community. Obviously many local governments are already down to the XYZ's. In any case some of these simplistic definitions may increase the vocabulary of members of the city staff, which in itself would be an improvement. FAST FORWARD /REWIND Remember when as a child one would wonder why the Chinese on the other side of the earth were not upside down? Well maybe that is not so wrong. Hong Kong, it appears, is about to grant an exclusive franchise to a cable operator while in America we are insisting upon non exclusive cable franchises. All the more amazing when one considers that the Chinese, with their dinner choices of menu A, B, and so forth are a true example of non exclusivity. For some years now those of us who study the cable industry have been aware of the diversion of the cable industry revenue stream from installation sales for one, as the build of America is virtually complete, to other more esoteric sources. Advertising is, of course, one of the major more recent trends that puts money into cablers pockets (and should put 5% into yours). The growth of this source has been meteoric. In 1990 advertising revenues shot up by 25.8 percent to a total of $2.5 billion. This brings to mind that municipal cable officials or the tax department or whatever agency is responsible for the correct calculation of franchise fees should be aware of the even faster growth of advertising in the local cable T.V. guides. If you think for one moment that this is insignificant, remember that the National T.V. Guide (the one the cablers don't print) has the highest advertising revenue of any periodical published in the Country. Take a look at the next edition of your operator's magazine and compare the growth of advertising space from one issue to another. That issue may be a monetary issue for your community as well. Arguably the single largest factor contributing to the spiraling cable television rate increases is the servicing of the debt acquired when a cable system takes a heavily leveraged position buy -out of another cable company. The Congress has said, we think, that they are against these rate hikes. So what does Congress do to help this situation? It has proposed a bill that would let the cablers trim tax liabilities resulting from these mergers and effectively says "Go forth and sin some more s Cablers for years have been defending allegations of monopoly by pointing out that "real" monopolies such as utilities, telephone companies and the ilk as necessities unlike cable which, they say, is a matter of choice for the purchaser. This somewhat textbook dogma is being diluted by the fact that in a poll of both subscribers and non subscribers taken by a cable industry unit, 42 percent labeled cable television as a "necessity" (there were only 38 percent saying this two years ago). This speaks well of the cablers' business acumen but also points up the challenge to the industry to stop trying to disengage itself from the responsibilities of a monopoly. Somehow we feel a bit insulted at the self- serving smug editorializing by some cable industry writers who suggest that city officials are not anxious to have cable alternative over the -air systems (direct broadcasting, multi- channel distribution, etc.) be able to purchase programs at the same price as cable system operators. This, they say, would enable these other services (who are treated as common carriers) to sell those at lower prices than the incumbent cable operator, causing it to lose business to this competitor and therefore pay less in franchise fees to the city. Perhaps local government could sue cablers for character harassment. If some of you had wondered about how difficult it must be for Congress persons to balance a checking account, other news from Washington bureaucracy leads one to realize that it's not always the legislative part of the Trioka that bumbles numbers. The Department of Commerce recently issued a report that the miniscule regulation of rates that went into effect in 1991 "will not lead to major losses for cable operators Aren't you glad that someone has made this outstanding analysis? (Continued on next page.) HDTV (High Definition Television) may not be as close to around the corner as many of us were led to believe. In the first place Japan, who less than five years ago had predicted that 500,000 sets would be sold in 1991, has sold less than 3,000. One reason that might explain this lowering of expectations is that the first sets sold in this country will have a price tag of at least Published by: Lon Hurd Edited by: Miles Overholt Produced by: Sandra Schulze For information concerning our consulting services contact Lon Hurd at SUBSCRIPTION ORDER NAIVW. TITLE CITY/FIRM ADDRES S CITY STATF ZIP 6 $6,000. The corner must be on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. The cable industry's trade papers have been abuzz with rumors that the Christian Science Church's Monitor channel is about to go under. And all the time we thought it was the Merrimac that sank the Monitor. These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. A graduate of Harvard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West and Who's Who in Industry and Finance. This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. Excerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. Cable Communications Consultants 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE S.W. SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WA 98116 (206) 935 -9040 0 FAX (206) 932 -4284 0 1- 800 -222 -9697 i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Enclosed please find Check in the amount of $35.00 Bill later for one year subscription (4 issues) to The Municipal Cable Regulator. 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue Southwest, Suite B Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935 -9040 E able Communications Consultants The Municipal Cable ISSUE 3 VOLUME 15 JULY 1992 REGULATOR From the Editor's Desk:= GOODBYE COLUMBUS If, as the doggerel goes, "In fourteen hundred ninety -two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue then, by gosh, this must be the five hundredth anniversary of the voyage, or so every newspaper, magazine and television show has been telling us all year, ad nauseam. It may be appropriate, therefore, to focus on another historical event involving Columbus and to see what has evolved. We are not talking here about the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria, but Columbus, Ohio which made history not five hundred, but just fifteen years ago. Columbus the City was at the forefront, or to use today's idiom, the cutting edge, of a new and exciting cable television break through. One that was speculated in those bygone days to be the harbinger of a whole new vista for cable. The excitement was all about something called "QUBE QUBE was the first commercial application of interactive technology. Never mind that only a few hundred subscribers had the system, the eyes of the cable world were upon Columbus. One could not only order up on demand a movie, an Ohio State football game, or some racy "R" rated movies, but could also "vote" with the equipment. There were ten interactive Pay Per -View channels, (although the term was not in common use at that time) far more than all but the largest systems have available today. It was, however, the non entertainment aspect of QUBE that seized public interest. Various, generally hokey events, were presented upon which subscribers could express their views by punching "yes" or "no" via their converter or approval gradation from one to ten. People were envisaging an enormous Town Hall (this was before Ross Perot) whereby citizens could cast their vote (presumably non binding) upon issues brought before the City Council by simply using their QUBE magic box. 1 ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CATV Newsletter This led to all of the famous excessive promises that the cable industry promoted in the 70's. Not only banking by cable which seemed to be merely routine, but also more exciting purposes such as shopping by cable. A video camera would pan over a bin of potatoes and the customer, ensconced in a living room chair, could select the quantity desired and the commodity would be either delivered or put aside for pickup. If Columbus the explorer opened up a new world of riches, so did Columbus the City with its QUBE open up a new world of interactive cable which would also transform our customs. Or so we thought. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way —we are talking now about the City —the other Columbus did all right. Now fifteen years later we are, as far as addressability goes, still only on the brink of the new world. However on this fifteenth anniversary many of the projects designed and tested by QUBE do seem to be about to come to fruition maybe. "If Columbus the explorer opened up a new world of riches, so did Columbus the City with its QUBE open up a new world of interactive cable which would also transform our customs." $10.00 There seems to be an echo from the past in press releases from the cable industry. Certainly the players have changed since Columbus' QUBE days —and probably for the better. Mighty IBM has trod up to the plate with a mighty big bat. It and Time Warner are talking about joint efforts to store, either by digitalization or compression, entertainment software in computers and transmit them to Time Warner subscribers. TCI, no small hitter itself, is going to do similar things with Digital Equipment Corporation. Blockbuster, the enormously successful video rental chain is making noises about getting into PPV. There is talk of 50 channels of PPV in the near future. There are also new buzz word phrases —video on demand. But then the cable industry has always been infatuated with high technology. Unfortunately much of this fascination is demonstrated at conventions and press releases, and yes, experiments, rather than mass applications. Even the proposed interactive game channels which are causing so many ripples in the cabler's world will require a telephone to activate the games rather than true interactive means. And the prices! You wouldn't believe it! This summer as we listen to the speeches, watch the replica caravels drop anchor to the cheers of spectators or gasp at the fireworks saluting this five hundredth year, we should pause and reflect on the promises unkept of another Columbus. Perhaps all QUBE needed was a Queen Isabella. OVER AND UNDER AND OUT In this election year we live in a world of sound bites on television —short pithy platitudes that promise much, but other than over simplistic catch phrases, furnish very little detail of how the objective may be reached in a real world of complexities. So it is with print pundits who have come up with an answer for all of cable television's ills— competition. Surprise, surprise. Reader's Digest, the magazine with the largest circulation in the Country, published last month an article with the socko title "Behind the Cable TV Ripoff Among the gems that this expose disclosed were: "Local governments —with the encouragement of cable operators —have thrown up nearly insurmountable barriers to the entry of more than one firm into each market." It concludes with a statement as if it came down from the Mountain, "The answer is not to regulate cable prices —it is to remove all barriers that prevent cable competition." We are all grateful for the revelation. It isn't just the broad market magazines who have discovered instant solutions, but some upscale publications have also discovered an easy answer to the cable problem. The Washington Monthly plays the same theme. Note: "But cynics suspected all along that the politicians concocted the natural monopoly system for their own benefit." Not only are stories such as these incorrect, they divert public attention away 2 from the hard, complex approach to curtailing the cable de facto monopoly. For example, the Reader's Digest apparently (for it's calculations and assumptions are not shown) takes the rate in some 60 small areas that have competition and then extrapolates the rest of the system rate and headlines that the annual rate without competition at $207.72 and with competition $169.56. A far reach indeed even for Reader's Digest. "Because cable television is indeed a natural monopoly, (note the emphasis on the word "natural market forces do not drive its rates or services." This theory is pervasive not only to the general public, but also to public officials in Congress and out who should certainly know better. A corollary to the competition theory is the municipal ownership myth. The same authors, politicians, activists who wave the flags for cable television competition fail to see the fatal flaw in their arguments. Because cable television is indeed a natural monopoly, (note the emphasis on the word "natural market forces do not drive its rates or services. Without getting into a semantic discussion of the definition of a natural monopoly, there are many examples that pop up all around us. Would these same writers, we wonder, beat the same drum about light, water, sewer companies and local telephone companies? Why won't competition and /or municipal cable television work? The simplistic answer (although not as simple as the competitive cure all) is it won't work because someone got there first. A couple of military aphorisms come to mind. There is, of course, Civil War General Bedford Forrest's "get there furstest with the mostest" and the infantry dictum of "seize the high ground and hold it In the battle for cable television subscribers either is applicable. There have been many excellent and well researched analyses of overbuilds by such firms as Touche Ross and others. This will not be one of them. Nonetheless all the studies are driven by some rather simple arithmetic. The numbers will vary but all pretty much agree on one fundamental; to make a profit, adequate return on investment, or whatever financial formula may be used, a cable operator must have a penetration (ratio of homes passed by its cable distribution line to subscribers) of, at the bottom of the scale, 25% to as much as 40 Nationally the penetration rate today is 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 just over 60 That means that an overbuild would have to take away half of the incumbent operator's subscribers (i.e. 1/2 of the 60 just to be virtually at the optimistic break even point. This simply, except under very unusual circumstances cannot be done. There is no parallel to, say, the Japanese coming in with a lower priced and better quality automobile and wreaking havoc with Detroit motor companies. First of all the second operator will have, at best, no better product in terms of programing to sell. With 54 channels or more now virtually the norm, there is no way a newcomer can come in with a hit channel that is not already available, probably at a lower price, to the initial franchisee. Nevertheless, the wishful thinking goes, the subscriber could be wooed by a lower price. This, of course, is premised on the fact that the second comer will somehow have lower costs if not in the programing (which are usually discounted for volume already putting the overbuilder at a disadvantage) then, perhaps in construction and operating costs. This too is a myth that can quickly be disposed. Pick any year that a given cable system was built and compare their labor rates to those of today. Equipment hardware? The same escalation of costs exists between when it was purchased years ago and for what it is selling now. "With 54 channels or more now virtually the norm, there is no way a newcomer can come in with a lit channel that is not already available, probably at a lower price, to the initial franchisee" Have technology increased efficiencies made signal delivery less costly now than sometime ago? The answer is that there is no digital calculator parallel to be drawn. While the equipment of today is unquestionably better in terms of more punch for the buck, most existing cable systems, to one degree or the other, have already incorporated many of these features into their plant layouts. Fiber optics is reputed to be the elixir of alchemy that, if not capable of turning lead into gold, can at least transform copper cable into subscriber's gold when it replaces old cable lines. Does this then give the advantage to a new operator who can start with fiber optic cable from the word go and thus be no worse off than the in -place cabler who will have to turn to this medium sooner or later? It may raise the odds on success but not by very much. In the first place fiber optic for now and in the foreseeable future is still very expensive. Even mighty Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI) with 3 all of its enormous resources is gingerly trying it out. Further the cost to replace coaxial cable with fiber optic using already existing conduit and poles is far far less than starting from scratch the way a new builder would be forced to. Finally there is the problem of marketing. Assuming that the 40% of homes that don't now have cable have good reason for so not having, which is unlikely to change, then the target market is limited to those who already are subscribers to the first cable company. We have already discussed the similarity if not the identicalness of the product. While on a limited basis a new would -be operator may find a niche usually in an age group —which would change companies for a particular program choice, that market is very small indeed. The biggest deterrent to selling the product of a new franchisee is apathy. Apathy not only of the "why should I bother to change" variety, but of even more tangible resistance to physical changes. How many homeowners are going to want their yard again disrupted for new conduit, or another hole punched into the house for another cable lead? The price differential has to be substantial in this extremely unique market. But can there be a large price variance? Not for any long period of time, not without very deep pockets at least. Certainly all businesses have entry market price promotions. Certainly no company plans to reach a positive cash flow in a short time with a new venture, but very few would be brave enough to sell an identical product, probably costing it more than the incumbent, with higher distribution costs, smaller market potential and lethargic customers for very long. Even if it were ready and able to bite the bullet for a good space of time, reason tells us that sooner or later, once an established subscriber base has been purchased (by artificially lowering the delivery price) the selling price must be raised, probably not only to the level of its competition but most likely even higher to recoup its entry losses. All of this will bear no long range advantages for subscribers which is, after all, the reason a community would encourage competition in the first place. There are more peculiar circumstances that work against an overbuilder. One being that it is very likely that the existing franchisee has long ago completed the vast majority of its construction and initial marketing efforts and that many expenses have been completely amortized. Then there is the nasty little matter of selective pricing. If a new operator runs a distribution cable down the left hand side of Elm street and offers its wares for, say, a dollar less than the in situ cabler, the old boy can merely lower its price to that point or lower on the left hand side of the street only and merrily keep its regular price on the right hand side of Elm street. To enter this game you have to be either very lucky or very rich. Most overbuilders are neither. All of the above, of course, applies to municipal ownership as well. Cities can attempt to justify this course of action (other than to provide better services and price to its citizens) by piggy backing other public utility functions such as metering and traffic control. Many cities looking at cable ventures have their own utility billing and can justify, on paper, elimination of some supervisory and clerical redundancies. Experience has shown, however, that such "savings" are difficult to transfer to payroll decreases. The old elimination of half an employee body by consolidation often results in the resurrection of the fractional bodies elsewhere. That is not to say that there are not examples of successful overbuilds or municipal ownership, for that matter. However, in every one of these cases that we have examined there are unique circumstances. The city is very small, the incumbent operator is hopelessly inept, penetration rates, because of the inability to receive off -air reception, are near 90% and somehow they are almost all in the South. That is not to say that there aren't plenty of eager turnkey installation companies out there to solicit the business from a local government. One community received over a dozen proposals within one month. Please note that in our comments we are discussing a true overbuild, not a purchase and subsequent operation of an existing system which is a more straightforward approach. In our view, not only does local municipal ownership have the same disadvantages as any overbuilder (probably worse in that no economies of scale can be realized by its small purchasing power) but also has some specific additional disadvantages. In the first place the city accountants must take a very hard look at what operating profits, taking into account the cost of bond funding, will be needed to equal 5% of gross revenues it presently derives. There is a lot of difference between the two approaches. Finally, there is the social investment factor. Local government finds itself faced with the problem of less pass down dollars from Federal and State levels and consequentially with more social obligations to its citizens. Each civic official should be realistic enough to consider, that if push comes to shove, isn't raising television cable rates less onerous than taxes or cutting back on social services? We believe that the weight will fall upon increased 4 rates. If so the cycle has merely begun all over again. Competition in the cable television market is undoubtedly required —all we need to know is how to do it. 20% Pre-Tax Earnings 5% Franchise Fee 7% Interest 11% Amortization 10% Depreciation 25% Operating Costs 22% Selling and G A WHERE DOES IT ALL GO? How many times do we say to ourselves, speaking of household expenditures, "where has all the money gone Businesses, of course, have the same problem. The chart above is a composite breakdown of how revenues are distributed by a typical cable operator or Multiple System Operator (MSO). Some explanatory notes may be in order. Depreciation and amortization are used here as in any operating statement and are self explanatory. Operating costs, as shown in the chart, are largely comprised of programing costs paid to program suppliers as well as payroll and maintenance equipment costs (compared to construction costs which are amortized). The "selling" portion of the selling and G A is just what one thinks it is. G A is shorthand for General and Administrative. These are the corporate and regional office expenses allocated to an individual cable system. These are usually apportioned on the basis of a system's revenues or number of subscribers. These headquarter costs do not cover interest which is shown as a separate item. One reason many cable systems toss selling and G A into one category is to obfuscate the G A dollars, which if shown separately would be, take our word for it, quite a shocker as to its magnitude. The ten percent interest may raise a few hackles. It represents, among other things, the leveraged buy outs (LBO's) of other properties and internal expansion as well. It also speaks to a feeding frenzy —the hypothesis that more is better. In the real world of competition a company could not assume such debt (viz. department store chains) without going under. In the unreal world of cable, however, without competition, these grandiose expenditures are merely passed on to the consumer, take it or leave it, in the form of ever higher rates. The franchise fee category is shown above at a flat 5 This is a bit misleading as in the cablers' books other expenses (called franchise costs) are included here to make this slice of the pie a bit larger. Some of the catch -all items such as access support are logically in this segment, while others, far less obvious, are often included probably, in our estimation, as an easy excuse to justify a need for higher rates without blame to the operations themselves. However, this is our chart and we will peg (no pun intended) it at the 5% figure, bearing in mind that there are many older franchises which call for less than a 5% fee. "The obvious question is then, where did all the system profits go? The simple answer is that they were spent on other ventures in order to, in many cases, avoid paying federal income tax." Note that in this segmented pie chart we have somewhat taken the easy way out and tossed the residue after all the expenses are subtracted into a somewhat deceptive category labled "pre -tax earnings Without getting into more accounting practices than is warranted here such as discounted cash flow, operating income or other esoteria this is simply the leftover pie. If this was purely the amount on which income taxes were to be paid, it would leave a net profit at a very nice 10% or better. In the quirky world of cable economics it does not quite work that way. For example, in the last accounting year about only one third of the top 27 cable companies showed a profit at the corporate level. The obvious question is then, where did all the system profits go? The simple answer is that they were spent on other ventures in order to, in many cases, avoid paying federal income tax. Generally these expenditures were made in buying yet more cable systems or cable programing. This probably does not come under the heading of creative bookkeeping, but it certainly does tend to muddy the waters when looking at the overall picture. Please do not cry for the cable industry. It is alive, healthy, growing and doing very well, thank you, in spite of what one may see in the annual reports. Focus rather on the 20% pre -tax earnings at a typical local level to better understand cable system economics. 5 FAST FORWARD /REWIND Sometimes the cable industry appears to be so paranoid that it is almost frightening. A recent columnist opined, "Congress hates the cable industry It almost seems to be a schoolyard "if you can't play by my rules, I'll go home" sort of concept. Speaking of Congress (the hating one), the cablers suffered a defeat when Senator Tim Wirth, one of the industry's strongest supporters on the Hill, (in the wake of incumbency reaction and the checks scandal) decided not to run for reelection. The influential member from Colorado was the darling of the cable lobbyists and was the benefactor of many of their attentions. Now we wonder if they are asking themselves if it was "wirth" it. Still on the subject of Congressional action, a cable supplier has been running full page advertisements in the trade papers with the provocative statement in inch -high black type, "How to keep re- regulation from ruining your wonderful life Our comments would only be superfluous. This item either reflects creative pricing by a cable company or our arithmetic illiteracy. In an advertisement for basketball games on PPV it offered a two game package for $39.95 and a single game charge of $26.95. So far so good, but as a footnote to the two game package it happily announced that if the second game did not take place the cabler would generously credit one's account with $13.00. In other words the cable company would pocket $27.00 by not showing the second game. One wonders how much they would charge not to show any games. In addition to handing out brick -bats to the cablers, we are also pleased to pass out bouquets. Certainly one should be awarded to Capitol Cablevision in Charleston, WV, which self- imposes penalties if it doesn't meet certain customer service goals. For instance, if a billing problem isn't solved on the first call or if the service problem isn't taken care of (before 2:00 p.m.) on the day that a subscriber calls, the customer is given one month of free service. It has other stringent standards for its service as do other American Television and Communications (ATC) systems around the Country. We predict that they are so busy taking care of customers that they don't have time to read self serving ads in the cable publications. Contrast the above attitude to a recent poll taken of cable operators. By nearly 3 to 1, the operators indicated that their biggest challenge (note the upbeat "challenge" rather than "problem was re- regulation (68 as compared to customer service (24 We For information concerning our consulting services contact Lon Hurd at wonder whether ATC contributed to the poll? This has more to do with teachers than cable, but there must be a moral in it somewhere. Four teachers in Detroit were reprimanded for violating the school's contract with Whittle's Channel One 12 minute program by electing to teach the children face to face rather than via the tube. These radicals have been told that they face dismissal if they do it again. These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. A graduate of Harvard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West and Who's Who in Industry and Finance. Published by: Lon Hurd Edited by: Miles Overholt Produced by: Sandra Schulze This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. Excerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. 11 Cable Communications Consultants 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE S.W. SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WA 98116 (206) 935 -9040 0 FAX (206) 932 -4284 0 1- 800 222 -9697 r SUBSCRIPTION ORDER Enclosed please find Check in the amount of $35.00 Bill later for one year subscription (4 issues) to The Municipal Cable Regulator. NAMF. TITLE CITY /N11ZM ADDRESS CITY STATF ZIP 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue Southwest, Suite B Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935-9040 1 1 1 Cable Communications Consultants i The Municipal Cable REGULATOR ISSUE 4 VOLUME 15 OCTOBER 1992 From the Editor's Desk: POLEMIC S The four letter word from which we cannot escape at this time of the year is printed in every newspaper and magazine, is heard on nearly every radio and television program, is discussed on the curbside and in barrooms alike and is, of course, the ubiquitous word "poll This is, in case you have been away from this planet for a while, an election year. Decades ago it became apparent that the public wasn't content to wait until the official poll in November of every quadrennium to be notified of the winner of our Presidential, and significant others, election, but, much like children opening presents before Christmas, must discover now what governing people, party and political programs will guide us or lose us in the unpredictable future. Poll taking is nevertheless often an art rather than a science, a prediction rather than a fact. We are always informed in the plus or minus accuracy piously included in the tiny footnote appended at the end of each bewildering assortment of "yeses "noes "maybes" and "I don't understand the question" statistics. Starting with the primitive (by today's standards) Gallup polls of the 1930's to the plethora of telemarketing type of surveys that surround us today we are the most polled nation on earth. As an aside, have you noticed that all public opinion takers now seem to be in gangs? There is the Yankelovich- Clancy- Shulman/Time survey, the CNN -New York Times poll and on ad infinitum. If this trend continues, the identification of the pollsters will be longer than the results. It is, of course, not only the political sector that is dissected by those with questionnaires; but also it is pervasive in all segments of our society. ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CA7V Newsletter $10.00 We are asked such frivolous questions as to what flavor of ice cream we prefer to much more meaningful such as the shampoo of our choice. Along about this time, especially in a Presidential election year, one is tempted to hope for a survey that would ask whether poll takers themselves should be convicted of a heinous offense or merely sentenced to be made to repeat the same questions over and over to a tape recorder set on playback. However, we digress. Unlike polls taken to avoid having to read newspapers on November 5th, to those of us who are concerned with cable television's relationship with its local government it is incumbent to monitor the pulse beat of the residents of our respective communities. While, to a greater or smaller degree, such interaction is always a good idea, it becomes a specific job description, if you will, at the time of a cable television renewal period. Section 626(a) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 speaks directly to this obligation: "The franchising authority shall commence proceeding for the purpose of— (1) identifying the future cable related needs and interests [of the community Does this necessarily mean an elaborate and expensive survey? No, but whether it consists merely of an informal knowledge of a community's feelings or a more scientific poll, it must, at least, reflect an informed opinion of the cable subscribers as to what is expected from cable television during the ensuing years of a new franchise. To achieve this result there are two main prerequisites: One, the public must know what it is that he or she is being asked and second, the question taking is itself unbiased. The first of these considerations concerns clarity. Not just clarity of expression, but clarity of language. While those of us close to the cable industry use and understand such esoteria as "I- Nets", "upstream and downstream" and "off -air signals most respondents will not. This leads to the first dictum in cable television questionnaires explain the terminology. It is much less of a sin to be oversimplistic than overcomplicated. The issue of bias, although a condition of all surveys in whatever field, is particularly important in a community needs and interest questionnaire as part of the cable television renewal process. We know of numerous cases in which the cable operator has alleged that a city's questionnaire is skewed and incomplete, and the result goes ahead and does a poll of its own, often arriving (no surprise) at totally different conclusions. This, of course, seriously weakens a community's position in negotiations and, in worst cases, supports a cable company's legal redress. The flaw to which cablers usually object is that of not indicating in the survey that certain features that may be desirable to the community come with a very expensive price tag. The franchisee will suggest that such costs will be eventually passed on to the subscriber. While a franchising authority may argue with some degree of merit that these costs may be absorbed by the operator by increased efficiencies, elimination of nonproductive tasks and diminution of profits, a survey is not the place to start such a debate. In view of the time and the place it is appropriate to devote much of this edition of the Regulator to a discussion and analysis of pre franchising surveys made for a community. But please, don't count on this to tell whether Bush or Clinton will win in November. "ASK NOT WHAT YOU SHALL RECEIVE Sometimes cable television survey results speak to a larger issue than the specific answer to the question itself. Case in point: in a recent survey we asked a routine question regarding interest in public access channels. The multiple choices offered were "should be included, "would watch, and "would participate The 18 categories were also the usual; civic meetings, community presentations of art groups, local sports, adult education, announcements and the like. While on the average of the 18 program groups, a respectable 40% of the public thought such programs should be aired, only 4% checked the 2 "would participate" box. It is not our purpose to make out of this a sermon on ethics, but that aside, these numbers are disturbing in a more practical sense. We don't know what the "right" ratio should be, but off hand it would seem that there are a great many more takers than doers. It may well be that this participation factor is a better measurement of the future success of a given type of programing than the passive "would watch" or "should be included" groups. It could be that before undertaking a program that (as do most access projects) depend largely on volunteer help, those in charge might want to compute the actual number of would be participants, divide it by some sort of back out factor and decide if that will allow enough warm bodies to actually get the specific activity off the ground and on the air. POLEVAULTED One of the fascinations, we believe, with polls is the fact that one can in a sense spy on someone else's opinions. Perhaps subconsciously these are measured against our own perceptions and we are either delighted that they are confirmed or smug in the attitude that we know better. So, too, it is with surveys of attitudes towards the cable industry. While there are intermittent National polls (a Consumer Digest survey a few years back comes to mind), they are usually too broad and do not always go to the heart of the feelings of our own convictions. In this spirit we next present a series of graphical representatives of a large scale survey to which we have earlier alluded in these columns. The percentage of responses was, in our view, extremely high and represents, if you will, a snapshot of public opinion at this penultimate of legal agonizing over the reigning in of heretofore the unleashed swashbuckling of cable operators. In our questionnaire we asked for expression of opinion on some thirteen characteristics of cable companies. We feel that our questions were poised so as to extract a balanced opinion of this particular cable operator. It should be noted that this particular Multiple System Operator (MSO) is, by industry standards, not only a giant in size, but, in the greater universe of the cable planet, generally well regarded. Our poll did not find otherwise. The following graphs illustrate the findings of this particular survey taken less than 60 days ago. 50 -I 40 30 20 10 Very Satisfied Responsiveness 50 40 30 20 Satisfied 10 Satisfied Refund For Outage Time Overall Rating Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied ii4.. Comments may be largely superfluous, however, we cannot resist some editorializing. Some of the results may be a surprise to cable bashers. It would certainly appear, at least from this cross section slice, that the cable operator has tried to address several of the sore points of which subscribers have previously complained. Certainly it would appear that picture quality and installation wait time (although the latter may be only a result of much smaller requests) are pretty much in hand by the operator. One can also, to be picky, suggest that all of the technological improvements over the years certainly should bear fruit in better picture quality. On the more positive side, this cable operator, at least, seems to have addressed some 4 %Q 50 40 30 20 Very 10 Satisfied 50 30 Adherence to Commitments Somewhat Satisfied S Rates Very 40 Somewhatunsafisfied Unsatisfied Somewhat We Satisfied ti 20 Very Satisfied:' Satisfied 0 Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied industry troubled issues in a positive way. One of the pleasant surprises to our Firm was the public reaction to such issues as billing practices and telephone courtesy and related telephone handling relationships. Telephones, as most of us know, have always been the Achilles heel of the cable operator's public relations front. On the whole most of the grades were about C +'s and this is reinforced in the overall rating. The two pocketbook issues, refunds for outages and, as to be expected, the ubiquitous presence of rates received failing grades. The large "very unsatisfied" vote for outage refunds was a bit of a surprise. In the area where this survey was taken there has been no history of natural disasters to cause prolonged system failure and the conclusion must be drawn that the subscribers are expecting reimbursement for outages that are less than the traditional 24 or 48 hours provisions that are in most franchise agreements. You should look at these graphs from several angles. If you have had a similar survey taken recently in your franchise area it should be helpful to make a mano a mano comparison. If you plan to have one made in the future this may give you some direction in which to go. If none of the above you may wish to assume that these may more or less represent the feelings of subscribers in your community and be so guided. 60 50 40 30 Very 20 Satisfied 10 0 50 40 30 20 Very 10 Satisfied 0 Picture Quality Satisfied Telephone Courtesy Satisfied Service Wait Time 50 -I Somewhat Satisfied 40 Somewhat r Unsatisfied 30 20 Very 10 1 Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Unsatisfied Very e e Unsarisfiec Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Unsatisfied Veryp Y \i+'vy++v`•:+• UnsahsfieC f? n :R': •r MCA: \•r Very Unsatisfied 3 50 40 30 50 40 30 20 20 Very, 10 Satisfied 0 Very 10 Satisfied 0 Program Variety Installation Wait Time Satisfied Billing Practices Somewhat Satisfied WPM Somewhat Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied -r- Telephone Answering Time 50 J 50 Somewhat Somewhat 40 Satisfied Satisfied 40 Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat l'.*: �vv i• Somewhat 41• r Unsatisfied 20 Unsatisfied :r+ Very 20 Very Unsatisfied 10 Very •Unsatisfied :r' ik K Very r A ph{ 10 4 f r 4� Y ri Y '''rr {v ti+ fF, s ti. Y Satisfied f 1Satisfied 2: c; 0 +.L. 'f Telephone Hold Time POLEAXED As all of us who are in "the business" know, local government (at least at this moment) has no jurisdiction over two prime areas of cable television: rates and programing. It is ironic that not only does the average man or woman on the street not know this, but also that these are the chief areas of concern to the public at large. In a recent survey of nearly 75,000 residents we asked, as preparation for determining a community's perceived cable television needs and interests, to rate seven areas which to the respondent would be the most important in a new cable franchise. Why we arbitrarily selected seven factors we cannot now recall. In retrospect we would like to say that we were subliminally influenced by Proverbs 9:1 "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars However it might be more appropriate that the seven measurements came from Lewis Carroll's famous quatrain in Alice in Wonderland: "If seven maids with seven mops Swept it for half a year, Do you suppose, the Walrus said, That they could get it clear? I doubt it, said the Carpenter, And shed a bitter tear In our survey we asked residents to rank seven features accordingly to what they felt to be the more important in a franchise renewal. Five of the criteria were those that should be addressed in a television renewal; two were not. Of the five which would entail local government involvement, the results were a mixed bag. There were several contradictions: for example, local access was ranked about in the middle of relative importance. A major coup, we felt for access broadcasting in areas where for other than sometime character generated messages public access in any form did not yet exist. Similarly dedicated channels (Institutional Networks) a much more difficult concept to explain in a region of I -Net wasteland, drew a surprisingly equal acceptance as access programing. From here on, however, things began to go downhill. The fuel, of course, to make access and I -Nets run is studio equipment and services. This category comes in a resounding last in preference. Even Pat Buchanan will poll more favorable sentiment than expressed by our survey audience for this type of support. This, we suppose, 5 perhaps the thesis expressed in a preceding article that talk is cheaper than action; that theory is easier than practice or some other sort of a syllogism. Incidentally, it should be no surprise that in our remaining pillars of wisdom, the importance of rates and programing came out to be at about 100 to 1 over the access and I -Net questions as priorities in the public's mind. Addressability ran a poor third. Perhaps our respondents had the phrase confused with fall fashions. FAST FORWARD /REWIND The cable industry has always been trendy with its vocabulary. Particularly do the cablers love snappy acronyms. PEG for Public, Educa- tional, and Government is one of the more over- worked ones. The forced abbreviation for Satel- lite Master Antenna (apartment house type cable systems) which is pronounced to rhyme with "slap me" is a little too precious. It has been a while since we have been burdened with a new acronym. Now as technology moves forward, the cablers have invented yet another one to keep pace with the times —the phrase, Fiber Optic Ur- ban Link (which in itself is pretty contrived) has been neatly abbreviated to F.O.U.L. While one can only admire the industry's creativity, some- how one wonders if it could not have picked a better choice of words. Do not cry for me, Barcelona or whatever. All of us have read the horror stories last month about the dismal acceptance of the "Triple Cast" of the Olympic Games on cable television. Someone surely lost money on this deal —but, to the surprise of no one it was not the much ballyhooed cable companies who lost (despite the creative bookkeeping) in last month's extravaganza. The cablers were merely sales reps. They were strictly on commission. If and when the red, white, or too often blue programs were sold, it, the cable operator, would receive a percentage of the rate (and, as you know, it plummeted in the last few days of the Olympics) charged to the consumer. Except for whatever telemarketing expense expended (and many systems did not even bother) it was all gravy to the cablers certainly not as much gravy as was wanted, but, nevertheless, gravy. Except for those comparatively few systems that had to buy out program contracts in order to free up the channel capacity to broadcast the games it all eventually ended up on the operator's bottom line. [Note to These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. A graduate of Harvard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West and Who's Who in Industry and Finance. Published by: Lon Hurd Edited by: Miles Overholt Produced by: Sandra Schulze franchising authorities: Make certain that you receive five or whatever percent of their gross revenues, if, hopefully, your franchise agreements so permit.] It seems that cable operators can cast three times in a seemingly empty pool and still catch a fish large enough to cook. This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. Excerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. For information concerning our consulting services contact Lon Hurd at 11 Cable Communications Consultants 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE S.W. SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WA 98116 (206) 935 -9040 0 FAX (206) 932 -4284 0 1- 800 222 -9697 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER Enclosed please find Check in the amount of $35.00 Bill later for one year subscription (4 issues) to The Municipal Cable Regulator. NAMF. TITLE CITY /FIRM ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue Southwest, Suite B Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935 -9040 4_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .,Cable Communications Consultants ,31S able Municipal Cable REGULATOR ISSUE 1 VOLUME 16 JANUARY 1993 From the Editor's Desk: EDITORIAL It should come as no great surprise that most of this issue of the Regulator will be devoted to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 [more on its name in subsequent columns]. One of the few things about it that people can agree upon is the date of its passage in a Presidential veto override. The date was October 5, 1992. If, as President Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, "a day that shall live in infamy this date should be perhaps called the day that shall live in confusion. On a more personal note we are pleased that its passage date narrowly missed coming before October first. During September and part of October we were travelling in France where at the time there was a bit more interest in the French approval or rejection of the Treaty of Maastricht than in the President's struggle with Congress over a cable bill. Nevertheless our journalistic pride was at risk. The Regulator was to be dated October 1, 1992. What if the Cable Act were to be passed prior to that time? Would our vast readership tear up their copies because we had not commented upon it? Would subscribers angrily cancel their subscriptions and demand refunds? Would irate readers make a bonfire of our un- newsy newsletter in the public streets? We asked ourselves these questions as we traveled past the French chateaux. Certainly, the New York Times and the Washington Post, with higher ethics, would immediately dump their preprinted issues in a similar set of circumstances and print a new edition, probably, we mused, with "EXTRA" screaming from its headline. But we were saved. 1 ANALYSIS COMMENTARY Formerly: CATV Newsletter $10.00 The fortune of politics was with us and we now have had nearly three months to analyze, comment and pontificate upon the meaning of the Act. Why is it then, we wonder, that we are just as confounded now as we were reading the one inch item regarding the U.S. edition of Paris Soir? WHAT'S IN A NAME Shakespeare wrote: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but then William wasn't around in the new age of bureaucratic name smelling. Point in case is, of course, the subject of this Newsletter: the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. "Our Federal Lawmakers apparently now consider the importance of legislation by the nwnler of names in its title." The title is off putting before one even gets into the text. First of all it has no peppy acronym which in itself should be a severe handicap. Of course, its successor; the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 didn't have one either. We suggested at the time that it should be retitled Cable Relations and Policy which makes a snappy acronym but that was never taken up by Washington either. Our Federal lawmakers apparently now consider the importance of legislation by the number of names in its title. The first law in this area was called simply the Communication Policy Act of 1934. Nothing fancy (this was during the depression), but rather succinct. Fifty years later Congress had become much wiser. The way to impress voters now was to zap them with important sounding words. Never mind that the words in the title didn't mean much, they sounded very Congressional. Hence, the aforementioned pomposity of the 1984 legislation. Ah, but with each passing election, our voices in Washington have become still wiser (and richer, too). No longer will a mere six-word title be sufficient, now it must be a nine word title. That is progress! It should be noted, in all fairness, that Congress has, in its wisdom, officially given it a short title. Are you ready for this? The short title is: "The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 In the process of developing the Bill the word "communication" which was felt to be important both in 1934 and 1984 was no longer to be part of its title. Depending upon one's perspective that may be alright, but what disturbs us is that the legislation actually does very little for consumer protection and even less for competition which are a part of its title. But then, we guess, a rose will still smell the same or something. GREAT EXPECTATIONS While the Cable Act of 1992, partly because of the publicity of the Bush veto issue, was heralded by the media as a landmark act for controlling a perceived unregulated monopoly it was, in reality, actually far from that. Of course it is hard to say if it is really far or near anything. Not only is the new Act full of ambiguities, contradictions and false assumptions, but is unlikely that in practice, S -12 will have much effect on most of the issues of our expectations. Virtually all of the substantive portions of the Act of 1992 have been shunted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for language on implementation. It is through the interpretation of a federal bureau which, in the past, has often spoken quite differently from the intent of the law makers, that the impact of most of the sections of the Act will be felt. In all fairness to the Commission, (which is woefully understaffed for this assignment) it will be extremely tricky for it to determine the intent of Congress when it is often apparent that Congress itself disagreed with the interpretation of several key sections. Not only do the Congressional staff comments express cloudiness on the meaning of many provisions and amendments but the reconciliation between the House and Senate versions of the Bill express often almost totally 2 divergent views. While these discrepancies have, of course, been constitutionally resolved legislatively; one gets the feeling that some of these interpretative abysses were filled only for the sake of compromise rather than from mutual understandings of the issues. "Finally, as the last damper upon our great expectations, is the fact that it may be likely that none of the major provisions of the law will be the law for very long." The wording of the Bill itself contains more bits and pieces of generalizations and pettifoggerys than a Christmas fruitcake has raisins. "Reasonable and "unreasonable "minimums and "maximums "materially" and "significantly "similar and all of the rest of interpretive expressions are here again. Percentage -wise there may be no more than in the previous legislation, but, as the 1992 Act has more words overall, it has more wishy washys as well. Finally, as the last damper upon our great expectations, is the fact that it may be likely that none of the major provisions of the law will be the law for very long. It could be said that if there were no lawyers the cable industry would have invented them. Cable attorneys have again sharpened their First Amendment swords, saddled their chargers (or at least their BMW's) and are again dashing into the fray of legal jousting on almost all of the issues of the legislation that were praiseworthy. In discussing these legal challenges it must be remembered that those portions of the Cable Act 1992 which are the more important to the consumer such as rate regulation, do not measure up, in the eyes of the cablers, to the two more expensive parts to them of S-12: must -carry and retransmission costs. It should be noted as well that on many points there is an internecine struggle taking place. Satellite broadcasters hate must -carry (requirements to carry the broadcast signals of local stations) regulations while nearby stations welcome it. Some religious groups are opposed to must -carry because their programs are distributed by satellite and thus may be bumped. Local educators using access channels are delighted. If cablers must pay for the privilege of rebroadcasting station content it may well add to the cost of regulated basic cable rates which the Act seeks to control. What effect will must -carry have on copyright regulations? Public Broadcasting Stations (PBS) will have often more than one duplicative signal transmitted in a local area. And the perplexities continue to abound. About the only issue on which there is general agreement is that rate regulation is going to be, to one degree or another, a problem. Most of the cable industry is ready to accept the inevitable, that rate regulation will be a fact of the cable industry's life. The cablers are now in a damage control mode attempting to minimize its impact through pressure on the FCC and retiering. Finally, and perhaps more ominous, there is the apocalyptic, non frivolous, lawsuit brought by cable giant Time Warner, Inc. that challenges the entire concept of the Cable Act on First Amendment grounds. Even if few or none of these lawsuits accomplish their avowed aims there remains the inevitable question of when? The FCC has been given the unenviable assignment of 180 days to issue rules and regulations for most of the provisions of the new Act. This is a patent impossibility given the past record of the Commission, its underfunding, its previous vacillation and the benevolence of a Congress which allows this agency far too much latitude in meeting deadlines. At the best, rate regulation criteria and guidelines for franchise expenses [see related article] may be issued on time. Don't hold your breath for the rest. Must -carry has already been kicked around in the courts for some time and will continue so. Retransmission consent will be a gold mine for the legal profession. Resolution will not be soon. It seems again that that old cable television franchise authority, William Shakespeare, again said it best: "Oft expectation fails, and most oft there where most it promises IT ADS UP Many local governments are concerned regarding the amount of franchise fees they receive. It depends, of course, upon the language of the franchise agreement. While our Firm provides a full franchise fee audit upon a sliding fee basis and we don't want to give away too many of our trade secrets, there are several quick eyeballing estimates that can be made by local 3 officials. All of these center around the reported income per subscriber (which first should be compared to national averages) and the subsets in this category. Take local advertising for example. A large Multiple System Operator (MSO) may generate around $1.50 per subscriber per month from this source. If a cable operator reports less than this it may well be worth its while to look further into it. Bear in mind that this is an ever increasing source of revenue. TCI, for example, will be looking at a 50% increase in advertising sales in 1992 over 1991. As the slogan goes, "it pays to advertise" —for cities too. We are reminded of what a Congressman, whose name now escapes us, said, relative to the Federal Deficit, a million here, a million there —it all adds up SETTLING ACCOUNTS In spite of the breast beating and lamentations over the perceived restrictions to their free booting of a captive market, there is a flip side to Cable Act 1992 for cable operators. In the ongoing fight for the hearts and minds of the consumer, there is a new weapon being deployed. This is the provision in the Act that allows a cable operator to itemize on its billing statement not only franchise fees, but also all funds the operator has provided towards Public, Educational and Government (PEG) access and Institutional Networks (I- Nets). Several cable companies are already using this as a threat to franchise authorities during refranchising discussion. This is another area in which Congress has passed the buck to the poor overworked and undertalented FCC to decide precisely how this plan will work. Completely apart from the hysteria that such itemization will cause it seems to be a prime example of shuffling responsibility. While it might be well argued that the FCC is more able than Congress to delineate technical standards or must carry, it would have been thought that there are plenty of CPA's on the committee's staff fully qualified to determine what generally accepted accounting practices will prevail without unloading this on the Commission. Nevertheless, even before issuance of precise guidelines, prudent local government officials should prepare for a public relation onslaught and make certain that elected officials are aware that this punch is coming. Beyond this, prior, to the issuance of the first customer bills containing these itemizations, someone from the City, either with some accounting knowledge or well briefed, should sit down with the cable operator and precisely discuss what will be shown. It is not inconceivable that some cabler could throw thousands of dollars of alleged costs attributable to PEG access and then be forced to recant some of them later. By this time the damage will have been done. A retraction never attracts the attention that does the original bombshell. The key to the fairness of showing such costs is that (absent FCC specifics) there be only one accounting method used for both the cable company's books and then itemized on the subscriber's bill. If, for example, an operator under IRS rules uses a five year depreciation schedule on certain capital costs, then this is the same computation that should be shown as a line item. Should interest be included additionally? Maybe, but the City should insist probably on current money costs. whatever costs are itemized they art amain to bring about an outcry from residents who feel that they are victims of A hidden tax without representation,* or worse, some sort of. a sinister conspiracy between the City and the cable operator. It gets more murky. What was the actual cost to a cable company of access production equipment with its volume discounts rather than so- called list prices? Watch out for overhead applications that may be compounded. If an operator subcontracts, say, installation of cable from a studio to its headend, full overhead should not be charged. Complete overhead of direct labor will undoubtedly be greater than 100 while handling on top of a subcontractor's bill should run not more than 10 If it appears that the cabler is billing unreasonable operational costs on an ongoing basis, the franchising authority may have to reach some system of agreement that the time charged to the project is appropriate and auditable. This is a lose -lose situation for local government. The least of the worries a community will likely have to deal with is to 4 devote resources to verify the legitimacy of the operator's charges. Much more important is that whatever costs are itemized they are certain to bring about an outcry from residents who feel that they are victims of a hidden tax without representation, or worse, some sort of a sinister conspiracy between the City and the cable operator. One of the principle points that must be clearly understood by officials and the public at large is that these various franchise costs are just itemizations, not pass throughs. Unfortunately, this will be small solace to subscribers burdened by escalating cable rates and looking for scapegoats. Beyond the problems with the itemization in itself, the fact that Congress felt that this measure was even necessary speaks to a growing "we" versus "them" complex. Cities are cast as the villains in a scenario scripted by influential cable spokespeople who see this cost breakout as an opportunity to underscore their alleged First Amendment rights abridgement. What the cablers do not see, or do not wish to see, is that there are costs of doing business which must be absorbed by any company. Many businesses, McDonald's comes to mind, spend sizeable sums of money in charitable contributions of one form or another. The tape register for a Big Mac does not specify what percentage of the tab was attributable to support of whatever charity. Yes, the cablers will argue, but the difference is that McDonald's gave out of its own volition, not as forced contribution to obtain a cable franchise. This logic seems rather specious. Probably the cable industry should take a more aggressive advertising posture in regards to these types of civic expenses. Indeed on its bill it should discuss how it donates not only money to make access for educational I -Nets possible, but also over and beyond it provides technical expertise that is unique and valuable above a price tag. But be a little less crass than a purely dollar amount on a customer's bill. It should not, in our view, make its expenditures in this field an ill- concealed blackmail to coerce public officials. One of the trends in franchising negotiations that appears more frequently is a cable company insistence of a public hearing before implementation of, for instance, some new access feature. Certainly a cable company, both collectively and individually, has every right to be heard in a public forum. Certainly the public has a right to know the cost of various cable non entertainment services. Certainly there is a price tag involved, but to hammer this home in every subscriber's monthly statement not only lacks subtlety, but will also only serve to exacerbate a situation which appears to be heading in the wrong direction. FAST FORWARD/REWIND Telecommunications Inc., the cable company which probably has more subscribers than Gideon has bibles, has recently begun to hedge its corporate policy on broadcasting "R" rated programs. For years TC1 has sniffed disdainfully at other cable operators that broadcast the Playboy channel and often loftily informed local government during franchising negotiation of its intent "never" to stoop to such broadcasting. But now, say the trade papers, TCI has reached an arrangement with a new adult service called Spice and shortly will begin to distribute this program in some markets. The most spicy part of the deal may be that while Playboy offers the operator 60 percent of revenues, Spice pays out 70 percent. Sometimes one wonders about the cable industry's (or at least one operator's) sense of balance. A cable television system owner in Missouri is quoted as saying "My worst fear is that I'm going to be forced into a position where I'm making decisions to meet the law rather than that which is good for my company." Gosh, all sort of "I should be above the law" scenarios come to mind, but the least offensive (but offensive enough) was when the President of General Motors some years ago made the statement, "What is good for General Motors is good for the Country Perhaps the cable industry should pay heed to the event that, some decades later, G.M. is looking at a long string of yearly losses. Perhaps cable operators, too, should not feel that their exalted financial pinnacle should make the law subordinate to their profit search. These passages have previously contained admiring references to the cable industry's mellifluous creative vocabulary. Tiers for levels, premium services rather than additional charge programs, customer service representatives in place of telephone clerks, basic instead of cheapest —the list goes on. However, for some reason the latest contrivance to describe telephone service provided by cable seems to miss its mark. The catch -word is "Telephony It may be the last half of the word that sounds, well, artificial. An interesting phenomenon has taken place in Garden Grove, California. That city's franchise called for an Institutional Network (I- Net) for the local school system. However the City came to feel that it had more pressing needs than the I -Net. Accordingly, Garden Grove released its franchisee from this obligation in exchange for some $200,000 in free advertising spots on the cable network. The logic was that while the community had no use for the I -Net at this time, it could use advertising spots to polish its civic image. Do you suppose that this could be a case of a bird in the hand is worth two in the grove? One of many complexing features of Congress' wish to push through again must -carry regulation, is channel positioning. The new law (until the courts again heave it out) requires a holdfast position as channels were located in July 1985. The only trouble with that is since that time cable companies have put their own revenue enhancing channels such as shopping channels on the low end of channel location and may be forced to relocate them. In this case low is higher, and high is lower —oh, let the courts figure it out. Cablers are in a paroxysm of fear that rate regulation could force them into the poorhouse and make them sell their daughters into white slavery. There are those who are frantically raising rates to beat the deadline willy nilly. Others raise their rates also but make pious protestations that they do this only to save the subscriber money. How is not quite clear. Then there are those such as the head of TCI who has honestly stated that because rate regulation will concern only such a small portion of revenues that it won't really matter. We find ourselves, for a change, on the same side as TCI in this argument. 5 (Consulting information next page.) These articles were written by Miles Overholt, Senior Consultant for 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. A graduate of Harvard, he has held executive positions in the private sector and is listed in Who's Who in the West and Who's Who in Industry and Finance. This publication is intended for the professional use of subscribers and client municipalities. Excerpts may be used by other publications provided proper attribution is given to 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants. 3fi 1' Cable Communications Consultants 2 4517 CALIFORNIA AVENUE S.W. SUITE B 0 SEATTLE, WA 98116 (206) 935 -9040 0 FAX (206) 932 -4284 0 1- 800 222 -9697 SUBSCRIPTION ORDER Enclosed please find Check in the amount of $35.00 Bill later for one year subscription (4 issues) to The Municipal Cable Regulator. NAME. CITY/FIRM ADDRESS CITY Published by: Lon Hurd Edited by: Miles Overholt Produced by: Sandra Schulze For information concerning our consulting services contact Lon Hurd at TITLE STATE ZIP 3 -H CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS 4517 California Avenue Southwest, Suite B Seattle, Washington 98116 (206) 935-9040 Cable Communications Consultants 1995 ANNUAL REPORT PREPA1 &ED FOR THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES February 12;19'96 Consultants to Local Government Specializing in Cable Television: Franchising Community Needs Assessments Refranchising Ordinance Preparation Access Franchise Administration, Evaluation Negotiation 0 I- A City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report NATIONAL Cable Television Regulation In terms of cable television regulation, 1995 was a year of lots of talk but very little action. It was a year of the three "C's combination, convergence and confusion. The combination, of course, was all of the high level mergers of major corporations jockeying for position on the communication super race track. To us in this area it seems that Microsoft is always prominent, one way or another, in most of these ventures. Convergence, in the sense used here, is another buzz word from an industry famous for such manufacturing. Convergence used here means the coming together of delivery systems for the same products. Generally video, telephone, data transmission and an interactive application of appropriate features are the main subject, for now, of convergent interests. Actually convergence would have been a better choice of words, but perhaps the cable industry and Congress are saving that for 1996. Finally, the third "C Confusion. A word that has been applied to cable matters in previous years as well was particularly relevant last year— thanks to the uncertainties from our nation's Capitol. Each of those three "C's" have had, to one degree or another, it's own effect on local cable regulators. The pure statistics of 1995 were again imposing. Cable subscribers grew by 5.8 Now 63.3% of all households in the United States are connected to cable. A hefty 44% of them also have premium programs, which in itself grew 3.8% last year. These figures should be viewed in context of the lament by the cablers who complained that rate regulation would threaten the growth and the health of the cable industry. The convergence issue was an issue of intense lobbying in Congress by 1 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report the convergers —the telephone and cable companies. The pending telecommunications reform bill was to have addressed, among other items, the complex issues of the technical and legal territories of each industry now existing and how they may overlap in the future. Part of the new legislation would have addressed the partial deregulation of the cable operators. Leading to the confusion factor is the fact that the Bill, originally to have been brought out in late summer, is, as of this writing, still languishing in Joint Senate House Conference Committee. All of the issues in the legislation will directly or indirectly have an impact upon the consumer. These areas of regulation are of primary interest to us. While uncertainties abound, particularly in the present political arena, there are some points in the Bill that seem likely to be a part of the approved version. One thing is certain, the bill is 281 pages long and has a draft 93 page explanatory statement and will mean a lot of protracted reading and analysis. It would appear that, as it now stands, rate regulation of programming tiers will end on March 31, 1999. During this time it is assumed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will continue to tinker with the structure of the mechanics of the process. As a result, many cable operators (including those in our area) may fall back upon the even more complex "cost of service" showing in an effort to avoid the vagaries of the FCC. These rules have been liberated by the FCC to include a higher rate of return and a more favorable approach to tangible assets. There were confusions emanating from Washington D.C. from other than the halls of Congress. "Must carry the Federal law that requires local stations and selected others to be carried by a cable system, has now been appealed to the Supreme Court. The verdicts of the Court could have an impact upon channels carried in the local area. 2 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report In the ongoing fight for position on the cable networks, leased local access channels (not to be confused with PEG access) are now in demand following decades of little interest as local home shopping channels. This is likely to cause more confusion to subscribers and to elicit another round of telephone calls to a city. In this regard it should be noted that another provision of the pending Telecommunications Reform Act is that subscriber rate complaints may no longer be addressed by the FCC for action but must go to the franchising authority. For years the cable companies have, in order to achieve their lobbying goals, raised the specter of competition. For some time it was home satellite dishes. Then the more advanced form of this Direct Broadcast Systems. Lately, of course, the bogeyman has been the telephone companies. It may appear that this threat is less of actuality and more wishful thinking. The Baby Bells have, in fact sealed back once aggressive plans to deploy broad band video and voice system, certainly as we look to 1996 it will be business as usual with the cable companies and will likely to continue in this manner until the turn of the century. 3 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report REGIONAL TCl/Viacom Merger The key phrase to effect Washington State's cable television and, it follows, local franchising authorities in 1995, was "cluster." Most industries become more cost effective through consolidation of resources through acquisition of a competitor. We have certainly seen this in our area by bank mergers. However, even though the large fishes of the cable industry such as TCI and Time Warner have had voracious opportunity in the past and have gobbled up many of the smaller independent operator fish over the past five years, it now has been on a hit and miss basis. If a small operator's balance sheet looked good, an offer was made on the often single ownership company and was absorbed into the larger company. However the traditional economic economies of scale did not come fully into play in these circumstances. While certain savings, largely in the cost of programs and in corporate assistance were realized, complete textbook elimination of redundant resources were not fully attainable because of the isolation of the acquiree, thus the cluster effect was desired. In a cluster concept the ideal cable system to be acquired would be tangential to a cable operation already owned by the acquirer. In this way redundant features could be consolidated, a headend could be eliminated, advertising could cover the now unsegmented market, duplicative human resources, particularly in the management area could be reduced as well as many other apparent cost saving measures. The implementation of this strategic philosophy has been going on for the past several years, usually through swaps of an operator's system with another's. This tactic has heretofore been felt mostly on the East Coast and, more recently, in the 4 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report Phoenix area. Obviously, the greater Seattle area, almost equally divided between Viacom and TCI would qualify as a perfect fit. We are now seeing the results of this planning in TCI's present pending takeover of the Viacom system to be effective sometime around the end of the first quarter of 1996. Viacom, the archetypical over achiever in the field of undigested acquisition, is burdened with a huge debt source since Sumner Redstone took over Viacom a few years ago and pointed in the direction of an entertainment producing not entertainment distributing company. Thus the sale of debt burdened Viacom cable properties with sizeable tangible assets to a financially secure TCI was seemingly a match made in heaven. Despite this apparent match financing was difficult to obtain and a previous effort through a fifty million dollar tax credit fell through a year ago. This time it appears that all of the ducks are in line and that the shape of regional cable for those cities served by either operator will be changed in 1996. Actually there will be very little apparent difference for some time. A name change, of course, an effort to have identical program carriage(this will take longer than expected), billing changes and some new voices to speak on the telephone will be the first steps. Both companies are engaged in major upgrading of the system with fiber -optic (with Viacom further along than TCI) and this will continue unabated. Prices are already about the same and this consolidation in itself should have no effect. 5 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report LOCAL In addition to the substantial impact of Federal legislation on the City of Port Angeles in many areas of cable operation, there have been a number of local issues that have also had a major impact on the City. FRANCHISE FEES With all of the uncertainty concerning rate regulation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate the franchise fees that the City of Port Angeles may collect for the upcoming year. More clarifications of the already complex and burdensome FCC rules along with foreseeable multiple increases in rates this year, only add to the inability of anyone to pinpoint in constant dollars any certain amount to be expected. Regardless of the challenge presented by these facts, we feel confident that we are in a position to present the City of Port Angeles with the most accurate estimate available. We estimate that the final Franchise fees to be collected in 1995 will be $75,000.00 and the estimated payment to be received from the operator in 1996 will be $82,250.00. As always, and especially in this coming year we will monitor the franchise fees collected by the City and keep staff advised of any discrepancies. 6 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants SERVICE REQUESTS Below we have presented a breakdown of the service calls received by Northland for a typical 30 -day period. These figures were obtained from logs maintained by the Operator for the month of November 1995. Reason for Call of Calls II Trunk /Distribution 14 Bad Fittings 11 Drop (subscriber feeder) 11 Customer Education 3 Customer Equipment (i.e. VCR, T.V.) 7 Northland Equipment 2 No Problem Discovered 13 Total 61 SERVICE CALL DIAGNOSIS City of Port Angeles 1995 Annual Report SENIOR CITIZEN /DISABLED PERSON DISCOUNTS Discounts for individuals that meet certain age or disability guidelines and that also meet Washington State HUD Housing low income standards now are receiving discounts on the basic services they receive from Northland. In the coming years it will be one of our functions to handle the certification process for the City and to continue with the ongoing monitoring of the individuals receiving the discounts. TECHNICAL At the time of our last report which was presented in July of last year, it was noted along with the customer service compliance review that Northland had a couple areas where their technical operations were not in full compliance with FCC guidelines. As a result we met with Northland and with their assistance conducted further testing on two separate occasions. The results of these tests are attached. We are glad to report that these reports now show Northland in full compliance with FCC technical specifications. At the time of our last report we also noted that Northland is tentatively scheduled to start an upgrade of the system. This will help them maintain the cable operations at a consistently higher level of technical compliance in the future. 7 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants Proof of Performance Testing PORT ANGELES SEQUIM Whispering Firs 27 deep W. 18th and McDonald 20 deep W. 10th and "N" St. 17 deep Four Seasons Ranch 12 deep Mt. Angeles /Key Rd. 11 deep Old Mill Rd. 13 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS TEST POINT LOCATIONS Taylor Cutoff Rd. 28 deep W. Anderson Rd. 23 deep Barr /Howe Rd. 23 deep Reservior Rd. /off 3rd Av 9 deep Secor Rd. /Riverside Rd. 13 deep Three Crabs Rd. 18 deep F.C.C. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS SELECTED CHANNELS Ch 4 4 67.25MHZ Ch 17 D 139.25MHZ CH 13 13 211.25MHZ CH 25 L 229.2625MHZ CH 29 P 253.2625MHZ CH 33 T' 277.2625MHZ CH 38 BB 307.2625MHZ aTe F.C.C. COMPLIANCE AURAL CARRIER SEPARATION ef/ F, co eiNI (7a1 TaX Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4F00104 Blonder- tongue Ch 3 BPFd Frequency counter Texscan TFC -450 serial #E2508 Procedure 1. Tune to Video Carrier Frequency 61.25 MHZ 2. Release Tune /Count switch (wait 5 seconds) 3. Depress 4.5 MH /Pix switch (wait 5 seconds) 4. Read /Record aural carrier separation on selected test channels 5. Repeat steps 1 -4 for each channel Note: Wait for oven light to extinguish before making any frequency readings. 2c'RG52 i I /oo' Ra s9 aide. F.C.C. COMPLIANCE IN BAND CHANNEL RESPONSE TGf /7 /3LE sC.Z «seo,e Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 Tuneable demodulator ISS Model GL- 1000A04 Oscilloscope Tektronix 2215 serial #B032359 75 ohm termination 2 BNC T type fittings 1 for 75 ohm load 1 for producing 2 viewable fields SALDELCO 260 -B spectrum calibrator (noise generator) serial #1578 use only if no multiburst test signal is provided Procedure Determine frequency response of each selected channel at at Headend. This establishes a reference. Compare in band frequencies showing greatest difference, typically .5MHZ and 3.58 MHZ. Measurement is made at modulator or strip processor output, before any other H.E. equipment. Formula to determine response is: 3.58 MHZ IRE dB 20 LOG .5 MHZ IRE Note: Depending on channel response frequencies other than .5MHZ and 3.58MHZ, should be chosen to show GREATEST in band response difference. Use same formula at six test site locations. Obtaining results Standard is 2dB Subtract test point reading from H.E. reference. This yields amplitude characteristic. Example H.E. response 4.19 dB (Minus) Test Point Response 3.27 dB EQUALS Amplitude Characteristic -.92 dB Manpower: One person with multiburst test signal available. Two persons: when necessary to inject noise generator in IF section of processor or modulator at H.E. /1).0 CARRIER LEVEL TO COHERENT DISTURBANCE Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX -5000 serial #4f00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain noise 6 dB Spectrum Analyzer Thetacom VSM -2A Procedure 1. Measure /Record peak of Video Carrier on selected channel. 2. Remove selected channel from system at H.E. 3. Switch from 60 log to 30 log scale. 4. Insert 1KHZ noise filter. 5. Measure /Record peak level of beats that occcur directly under selected video carrier or elsewhere in band. 6. Difference between measurements #1 and #5 is result. 7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 for other selected channels. Manpower 2 people e M PR i R�� .2 9 7i9/ ,2 &'4'6 '5 /00 Procedure CARRIER TO NOISE TEST Manpower: Two persons C ff 3 81°/- Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire Ch 3 converter Hamlin CRX 5000 serial #4F00104 Ch 3 BPF Blonder Tongue Ch 3 BPFd Preamp Wavetek RD -1 16 dB gain /noise 6 dB F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 1. Measure /Record peak of video carrier on selected channels. 2. Remove selected channels from H.E. 3. Tune F.S.M. to middle of band between video and chroma carriers. 4. Depress C/N switch on F.S.M. and take reading. 5. Difference between step 1 and step 4 is C/N of selected channel. 6. Return selected channel to the system. .2o RCSy c. /00 Ross F.C.C. COMPLIANCE HUM Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600B serial #1236 Procedure 1. Select one unmodulated carrier 2. Peak needle towards full scale 3. Depress hum switch and read percent of hum modulation at 400HZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE MINIMUM SIGNAL LEVEL TEST Procedure /00 Q e s� Op Record all video RF levels Minimum of 3dB my Equipment Needed to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire FSM SADELCO 600 B serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 serial #5809 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE SIGNAL LEAKAGE AT SELECTED TEST POINTS tl A900 T'ee.N,)J,1r o,4 a, Ra s9 Equipment Used to Conduct Test 100' RG 59 drop wire 81 A (Barrel) f terminator Leakage detector Trilithic Searcher tuned to Channel "C" 133.2625 MHZ Procedure 1. Attach 100' drop to test point 2. Terminate drop with 81 A and f terminator 3. Check /Record any leakage found Manpower: 1 person 1 1 1 F.C.C. COMPLIANCE 24 HOUR TEST 1 1 6 2 S, /l/ Equipment 1 100' of RG 59 drop wire F.S.M. SADELCO 600 B Serial #1236 or SADELCO Super 600 Digital Serial #5809 Procedure At six hour intervals during a 24 hour period, record RF levels both video RF and audio RF of every channel on system. Repeat this test at six locations in easch system. Manpower: 2 persons 11:30 p.m. 5:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m. 5 MHzfdiv .I,I.I.1,1, 0 cB ATT Aalczcom LABS =NC Dr,L 2 E> 4 EuRcwkniauusilD RESPON P RAomJcZ' =ON SAMPLE 264.0 MHz 111 In Iba U. 111 2, GEN -23 dBuW M ,1 Sec DATE 04 -20 -90 TIME 12:52 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6d8 Cutoff 272.97 MHz Upper 6dB Cutoff 514.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 283.23 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 515.28 MHz M4 30 kHz RES I. 1 .1.1,1.1.1.1.1,l,f,1.i.1.1,1.1. .1.1.1.1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 0 -10 20 -30 -40 -50 -60 1 -70 1 1 1 1 20 165.0 30 MHz/div MHz kHz RES .I.I.t.l, 0 dB ATT AIZCC)M LABS Xb7CZ 1111.1111 11.I.I.I. 1111 !1111 H. 1 I.1 I r it 1111 11,0 114 .1. Mit 11 1111. I.. ;1 .1111 1111. 11 1 Waveform File: E:X.wav DATE s 03 -12 -90 TINE 1:11 PM Video Filter: None Lower 6dB Cutoff 105.51 MHz Upper 6d3 Cutoff 265.00 MHz Lower 50dB Stopband 130.13 MHz Upper 50dB Stopband 265.51 MHz 1 .1.111,1, 11.1.1111 .1.1.1.1,1.1.1.1. I 1 GEN -4? dBMUU 1 Sec 1 ARCOM GAUSSIAN MG DOUBLE DENSITY DECODER' Despite theft limitations and inheren picture quality problems, positive traps are still widely used to secure low penetration pay services because of their low cost and user friendly features. After years of development, similar benefits but with 'class 1' picture quality is now available using the Arcom'' Gaussian passive decoding system. The Gaussian system scrambles the television picture by applying a substantial Gaussian response pre emphasis to the central portion of the video passband. Additionally, a gated carrier is inserted in the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals to supplement the scrambling effectiveness. Signals are restored with an MG decoding filter at the subscribers home. The MG decoder is an inverse of the pre emphasis, resulting in a net flat response 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARCOM CATV PRODUCTS y The net flat response characteristics of the Gaussian encoder and decoder combination results in minimal phase and amplitude irregularities. Since maintaining a deep notch is not an objective of the system, improved temperature and ageing tolerance is inherent. The MG decoder is a four -pole temperature compensated filter. It is mechanically identical to the high quality MN series mini -trap which ensures excellent Tong term RF integrity and stable performance under adverse weather conditions. The patented Gaussian system represents the latest in positive scrambling technology. Gaussian filters are user friendly allowing unlimited, multiple and simultaneous use of cable ready consumer features in televisions and VCRs. The system is no more secure than current positive traps, but has dramatically improved picture quality, The recommended operating range for the Gaussian system are those frequencies below 250MHz. This frequency limitation is not due to a lack of resolution, but due to excessive insertion loss at higher frequencies. FEATURES 'CLASS I PICTURES ECONOMIC AND USER FRIENDLY SMALL PHYSICAL SIZE MADE IN THE USA PATENT #5,022,078 MG•B Mlt�ur _INI 1N Rt it 11 �I If CV 11 11 Nita ji MG-13 wit Nit 71 1 1 71 $t owl i at 1 1 TV CHANNELS MN -2 MN -3 MN -4 MN -6 MN -6 TV CHANNELS MN -A -2 MN-A-1 MN -A MN -B MN -C MN -D MN -E MN -F MN -0 MN -H MN -I TV CHANNEL 7 MN -7 (7) TV CHANNELS MP -2 MP-3 MP -4 MP 5 MP -8 TV CHANNELS MP -A -2 MP -A -1 MP -A MP -B MP -C MP -D MP -E MP -F MP -G MP -H MP -I TV CHANNEL 7 MP -7 (7) 21- JAN -92 STANDARD FOUR- -P'OLE SHARP NEGATIVE TRAPS MODEL CH NOTCH FRED (MHz) -rra= =s-trc =moo- 2 THRU e (2) 55.25 (3) 81.26 (4) 87.25 (5) 77.26 (8) 83,25 A -2 THRU 1(22) 109.25 116.25 (14) 121.25 (15) 127.25 (18) 133.25 (17) 139.25 (18) 146.25 (19) 161.25 (20) 167.26 (21) 163.25 (22) 169.25 176.25 STANDARD FOUR -POLE SHARP POSITIVE TRAPS MODEL CH NOTCH FRED TYPICAL BANDWIDTH 50 dB 3d9 (MHz) (kHz) (MHz) 2 THRU 6 (2) 57.60 (3) 83.50 (4) 89.50 (6) 79.50 (8) 86.50 A -2 THRU 1(22) 111.60 117.60 (14) 123,60 (15) 129.60 (16) 135.60 (17) 141.50 (18) 147.50 (19) 163.50 (20) 159.50 (21) 185.50 (22) 171.50 177.60 TYPICAL. BANDWIDTH 60 dB 3d19 (kHz) (MHz) (LOW -BAND) 150 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 300 6,0 300 6,0 (MID -BAND) 220 5.0 220 8.0 220 5.0 220 6,0 220 6.0 220 6.0 230 8.0 230 0.0 230 8.0 250 8,0 250 8.0 (HIGH -BAND) 250 0.0 (LOW- BAND) 160 4.0 200 4.0 300 4.0 900 6.0 300 5.0 MID -BAND) 220 5.0 220 6,0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 6.0 220 5.0 230 6.0 230 8,0 230 8,0 250 8.0 260 8.0 (HIGH-BAND) 260 8,0 TYPICAL TYPICAL LOWER SOUND UPPER 2 NO 1 ST VIDEO (dB) (dB) (dB) >;■m 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 7,0 1.0 1.0 2.0 >10 ATTENUATION (TYPICAL) VIDEO (dB) 2,0 2.1 2.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3,8 3.8 4.0 4.2 4,4 4,8 4:8 6,0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7,0 COLOR SOUND CARRIER (dB) (dB) S---t e.0 6.6 7,0 7.6 8,0 9.0 9.4 9,8 10.2 10.8 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.2 12.6 13.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.6 9.0 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.2 4,4 4.8 4.8 6.0 MAX. ATT. (MHz) 400 600 800 (dB) =>=t =-t- =_salt 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 4.6 4,6 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2,0 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 MAX. ATT. (MHz) 400 600 800 (dB) -arst =MIMIC =:m--_t 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.2 13.5 5.2 1.0 6.0 >10 6.0 >10 4.6 >10 4.5 >10 4.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 3.0 >10 3,0 >10 2,0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 2.0 >10 -specifications subject to change without notloo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 THETA -COM Model A LL MODE LS Four Output Tap Nom. TaF Insertion Loss Input Output Tap -Out Loss 5 -300 MHz Return Loss Isolation 1 dB Nom. Max. (dB Min.) (dB Min) 5 -300 MHz XR2DT /4 -7 7 18 -10 10 3.6 3.8 20 26 13 13 1.7 2.0 20 26 17 17 1.0 1.2 20 26 20 20 0.6 0.8 20 32 23 23 0.4 0.6 20 36 26, .26 0.3 0.6 20 36 -29 29 0.3 0.5 20 36 32 32 0.3 0.5 20 36 -35 35 0.3 0.5 20 40 Tap Return Loss dB Min. 20 Tap to Tap Isolation -dB Min. 20 Current Capacity Amps, rms 3 5 -300 MHz Issued 2 73 Page -3 Multi -Taps Four -Port REGAL 5 -10 10 -50 50 -300 300 -400 400 -500 500 -600 MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz Isolation (dB) tap -to -tap 24 27 27 27 25 24 Return Toss (dB min) 16 19 20 20 18 16 Tap loss tolerance (dB) ±1 5 ±1.0 ±1 0 ±1.0 ±1.0 ±1 5 EMI shielding (dB min) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Power rating 6 Amps AC /DC, 60 Volts, 60 Hz Anixter No 082485 082486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 082485 082486 082487 082488 082489 082490 082491 082492 082493 082494 C An leer CAW, TV 1992 Vendor (Typical tap No. 1 loss RMT64 -8 7.4 dB RMT64 -1 1 10.8 dB RMT64 -14 14.3 dB RMT64 -17 17.3 dB RMT64 -20 20.3 dB RMT64 -23 23.4 dB RMT64 -26 26.2 dB RMT64 -29 29.3 dB RMT64 -32 32.5 dB' RMT64 -35 35.1 d$ RMT64 -8 7.4 dB RMT64-11 10 8 dB RMT64 -14 14.3 dB RMT64 -17 17.3 dB RMT64 -20 20.3 dB RMT64 -23 23.4 dB RMT64 -26 26 2 dB RMT64 -29 29.3 dB RMT64 -32 32 5 dB RMT64 -35 35 1 dB MULTI -TAPS I Insertion loss (dB) 5 -10 10 -50 50 -300 300 -400 400 -500 Color code MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz black T T T T_ T gold 3 7 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.9 blue 1.8 1 1.5 1.5 2.0 1 2.3 navy blue 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.4 orange 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 tan 0.7 1 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 orange -red 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 purple 0 5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 red 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1 0.8 green 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 Out -to -tap isolation (dB) black T T 1 T T T Gold 21 25 25 25 N 25 blue 25 28 28 28 1 27 navy blue 28 32 32 32 1 29 oranae 30 34 34 34 1 32 tan 33 37 37 37 35 orange -red 36 40 40 40 38 purple 38 42 42 42 40 red 40 43 43 43 42 green 43 46 46 46 44 C -86 TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS L 360 aluminum alloy housing with double polyurethane coating Stainless steel hardware Sealed 1 -piece nickel plated machined brass F ports F port entry seal and 0 ring to seal F port through faceplate Neoprene weather gasket and interlocking tongue and groove between housing and faceplate Woven metallic RFI gasket in housing channel Printed circuit board (PCB) and plastic cover 5/8' port extensions and F port drip wells Four seizure screws and non rotational c c seizure post for installation consistency Tapered c.c. entry and strip gauge for correct c.c. trim length Numbered F ports 500 -600 MHz T 4.2 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 T 22 25 27 31 33 35 37 39 42 1 January 8, 1993 1 II LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION 1 1 RE Qualifications of Person responsible for conducting FCC TESTING OF CATV SYSTEM(S). I Subiect James Jerome System Technician NCTV PORT ANGLELES 1 History James Jerome began his CATV career in November of I 1979 as an installer. Due to his nature he advanced to positons of greater responsibilty over the years proving himself a capable and dedicated employee. One of these responsibilities was leakage monitoring and repair which he I was entrusted with in 1981, 82 and 1983. He was a pioneer for us at that time. Subsequent equipment development and CLI compliance requirements came later. James had helped us I to get a good jump on leakage monitoring and repair. After seven years as a full time installer and later installer technician it was seen fit to advance him to the I level of technician. His responsibilities at this time included trouble shooting difficult installation problems,assisting with monthly headend checks,as well as I trouble shooting and repairing most system outages when called upon to do so. 1 1 1 1 1.,3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 After eight years with the company he was picked to conduct the "high level sweep" of all system trunk and bridger amplifiers. This job he has continued to accomplish well for the past five years. Line extenders have also been included in the sweep process. At .shout the same time complete maintanence of all three headends was gradually put in his care. Besides the routine head end work over the years he has recently been solely responsible for the transition to G- 5,C- 1,C -3, and C -4. James was utilized to accomplish the 330MHZ UPGRADE of both the Sequim and Port Angeles CATV systems(the Clallam Bay system having been previously rebuilt). Along with simple module change outs this also included the removal and replacement of 270MHZ amp cases(Phonecians) with new Texscan T series cases. James skillfully used his splicing and sweep knowledge to perform this task with minimal down time for our customers. He has been responsible for conducting NORTHLANDS QUALITY ASSURANCE tests on three separate systems on a daily and quarterly basis as called for in the Q AND A policy. During this same time James was responsible to oversee an installation crew of six, conduct monthly saftey meetings, coordinate truck maintenance, and act as a middle man for the installation crew with management and office staff. James is enrolled in his fourth of five possible NATIONAL CABLE TV INSTITUTE correspondence courses. He is also an active member in the SOCIETY OF CABLE TV ENGINEERS. He is scheduled to begin testing for the BROADBAND COMMUNICATION TECHNICIANS certification program put on by SCTE. He will be taking two tests in a seven part testing program on Janurav 27, 1993. EQUIPMENT FAMILIARITY All types of FSMs (including HUM and C/N functions) Spectrum anlyser Waveform monitor Oscilloscope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 Frequency counter Sweep generator reciever Demodulator Leakage detection equipment CONCLUSION• In summation, I would like to say I feel completely confident of James' ability to conduct the new FCC required tests. His professionalism and reliability to complete tasks unsupervised over the years has instilled in me this confidence. Sincerely yours, Mike Sturgeon PLANT MANAGER /CHEIF ENGINEER NORTHLAND CABLE TELEVISION Video 3 4\ 5 6 99 14 15 16, 11 18 19 20 I 21 1 22 11 1 1 9 li 10 11 12 I 13 24 1 26 21 I 28 29 30 1 31 32 I 33 34 35 1 37 3g 1 39 40 1 Seib, Terminal `Ff'CQjV`C4CY H.� F Medi° Video Andto Y y "s7 s o-2-g i 1 {Video 2 3� 1 4 I 5 M 6 9S 14 i5 1 0 ��s7� 16 1'1 1$ 19 20 21 1 7 1 9 10 li 12 9 S 13 I 23 S tf ..5-6,2 a G6 ?A zs 27 X.�9 28 29 1 1 30 31 y fix) /3Y Ili 34 1 33 35 36 2 31 38 1 39 1 4o. P Audio Sub. "Terininxt Frequency_ a I V idco 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Chan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO Model: 3SR Operator: J_J_JEROME Date: 08/27/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +13.4 3 NCN +14.5 4 KOMO +15.7 5 KING +17.4 6 CHEK +17.2 98 PPV +16.9 99 BOX +16.3 14 HBO +16.6 15 SHOW +16.0 '5 CMAX +16.3 CSPN +16.3 18 WTBS +15.4 19 QVC +16.0 20 TLC +16.8 21 E &G +16.6 22 CNN +16.3 7 KIRO +16.4 8 CHAN +16.5 9 KCTS +17.2 10 CKVU +16.9 11 KSTW +17.2 12 KVOS +14.1 13 KCPQ +17.0 23 FAM +17.4 24 CNBC +17.3 25 TNT +18.0 26 ESPN +18.7 27 CMT +18.6 28 A &E +17.5 29 DISC +17.8 30 H -N +17.5 31 TNN +16.5 32 TRAV +15.4 33 USA +15.6 34 PSNW +16.5 35 TCM +17.7 36 DISN +18.0 37 TOON +18.2 38 LIFE +18.2 39 AMC +17.4 2SPN +17.8 NICK +17.5 TEST REPORT rage Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 File: 8_95_FCC_PROOFS Time: 18:08:37 18TH_MCDONALD Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Audio (dBmV) 1.2 1.0 +0.9 +2.2 +1.7 +0.7 +1.0 +0.8 +0.4 +1.2 +1.2 +0.1 +1.1 +1.3 +0.0 +0.9 +1.8 +1.5 0.3 +1.3 +0.9 -1.3 +1.8 +1.6 +2.7 +3.4 +4.0 +2.7 +2.0 +1.6 +3.4 +0.6 0.1 +1.1 +1.8 +3.1 +3.0 +2.6 +1.4 +1.7 +2.8 -3.2 Delta V/A (dB) 14.6 15.5 14.8 15.2 15.5 16.2 15.3 15.8 15.6 15.1 15.1 15.3 14.9 15.5 16.6 15.4 14.6 15.0 17.5 HI 15.6 16.3 15.4 15.2 15.8 14.6 14.6 14.7 15.9 15.5 16.2 14.1 15.9 15.5 14.5 14.7 14.6 15.0 15.6 16.8 15.7 15.0 20.7 HI C/N (dB) ERROR +47.7 +47.7 +46.6 +47.7 Interval: 1 Temp: +69 F Hum 7.0 4.4 7.9 +48.4 4.2 +44.2 4.2 4.6 4.3 7, .5 3' C '7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ilj 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +13.4 dBmV Pass Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 2 26 5.2 dB Pass Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 30 14.1 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 41 20.7 dB Fail Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Fail Conclusion: F A I L Reviewed: Date: V .Ceq /fle 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUT3 TEST Model: 3SR Operator: J_J_JEROME Date: 08/27/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Chan Label 2 3 4 5 6 98 99 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 j CBUT NCN KOMO KING CHEK PPV BOX HBO SHOW CMAX CSPN WTBS QVC TLC E &G CNN KIRO CHAN KCTS CKVU KSTW KVOS KCPQ FAM CNBC TNT ESPN CMT A &E DISC H -N TNN TRAV USA PSNW TCM DISN TOON LIFE AMC 2SPN NICK nc,r vn. Video Audio (dBmV) (dBmV) +17.1 +1.0 +17.3 +1.2 +18.0 +2.7 +18.4 +3.2 +18.2 +3.0 +17.5 +1.8 +17.3 +2.1 +17.3 +1.6 +17.2 +1.8 +17.2 +1.6 +16.8 +1.8 +16.2 +0.4 +16.4 +0.3 +15.6 +0.6 +15.9 -0.4 +15.7 +0.7 +16.1 +2.0 +16.7 +2.9 +18.7 +1.8 +18.1 +1.8 +17.8 +2.1 +16.5 +0.3 +17.9 +2.5 +17.7 +1.9 +18.2 +3.0 +18.5 +3.9 +19.1 +4.5 +19.1 +3.6 +18.9 +3.0 +18.6 +3.3 +19.0 +5.3 +19.4 +4.3 +19.8 +4.9 +20.5 +5.1 +20.3 +4.8 +20.3 +4.5 +20.0 +4.4 +19.7 +4.1 +19.7 +3.4 +18.6 +2.8 +19.0 +4.4 +19.7 +3.9 Serial No: 5023129 File: AUG95FCC_PROOFS Time: 18:17:14 10TH_ &_N_STREET Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Delta V/A (dB) 16.1 16.1 15.3 15.2 15.2 15.7 15.2 15.7 15.4 15.6 15.0 15.8 16.1 15.0 16.3 15.0 14.1 13.8 16.9 16.3 15.7 16.2 15.4 15.8 15.2 14.6 14.6 15.5 15.9 15.3 13.7 15.1 14.9 15.4 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.6 16.3 15.8 14.6 15.8 C/N (dB) +48.1 +46.8 +49.0 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 1 Temp: +68 F Hum Mod 4.5 +47.3 2.9 +48.7 1.1 +46.1 1.9 1.1 0.8 r aur +48.1 1.7 6 ro f0 53 .Sg S8 SS 1 1 1 1 1 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 I LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: Max Delta Video Levels: I Min Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: Max Delta Adjacent Channels: I Conclusion: Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Actual CH 20 +15.6 dBmV Pass CH 20 33 4.8 dB Pass CH 30 13.7 dB Pass CH 9 16.9 dB Pass Pass Date: P A S S ///o z qtf-/c&---- I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REruttl rai Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Cal Date: 06/01/95 I Operator: J_J_JEROME `e: 08/29/95 1 Location Name: 18TH_& MCDONALD Location Type: Trunk Test Point Type: Bridger Test Point Compensation: +0.0 dB "Area: 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Amp ID: 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Power Config: In Feeder Maker Config: 1 Trunk Termination: Yes Voltage Setting: High I Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Reverse Equalizer: Forward Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Equalizer: File: 24_HR_FCC Interval: 1 Time: 14:15:30 Temp: +75 F +0.0 dB +0.0 dB I AC Voltage: 56 V DC Voltage (reg): 24.3 V (unreg): 30.0 V Chan Label Video Audio Delta V/A C/N Hum Mod I (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) (dB) 2 CBUT +10.4 -3.2 13.6 3 NCN +12.7 -3.5 16.2 4 KOMO +13.4 -0.8 14.2 1 5 KING +15.4 +0.6 14.8 6 CHEK +16.1 +0.1 16.0 Q8 PPV +17.3 +1.1 16.2 I BOX +16.9 +3.0 13.9 14 HBO +17.8 +2.7 15.1 15 SHOW +17.8 +3.0 14.8 16 CMAX +18.2 +3.2 15.0 I 17 CSPN +17.9 +3.8 14.1 18 WTBS +17.6 +2.8 14.8 19 QVC +18.3 +3.9 14.4 I 20 TLC +19.0 +4.1 14.9 21 E &G +19.2 +4.0 15.2 22 CNN +18.9 +4.0 14.9 IN 7 KIRO +19.1 +4.9 14.2 8 CHAN +19.6 +4.6 15.0 9 KCTS +19.9 +4.8 15.1 10 CKVU +20.2 +5.0 15.2 II 11 KSTW +20.0 +5.5 14.5 12 KVOS +19.6 +4.0 15.6 13 KCPQ +20.3 +3.4 16.9 I 23 FAM +18.1 +4.4 13.7 24 CNBC +20.0 +5.6 14.4 25 TNT +20.6 +5.9 14.7 26 ESPN +20.5 +6.1 14.4 I 27 CMT +20.5 +5.2 15.3 28 A &E +19.9 +5.1 14.8 29 DISC +19.9 +5.1 14.8 I 30 H -N +20.0 +4.7 15.3 TNN +20.0 +5.3 14.7 TRAV +20.1 +5.0 15.1 33 USA +20.2 +5.1 15.1 II 34 PSNW +19.9 +4.8 15.1 1 I Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dB) +4.9 14.8 +4.3 15.7 +2.9 16.1 +4.2 13.8 +5.6 14.6 +4.7 16.2 -1.3 19.5 HI (-Ilan Label Video (dBmV) II 35 TCM +19.7 36 DISN +20.0 37 TOON +19.0 I 38 LIFE +18.0 39 AMC +20.2 40 2SPN +20.9 I 41 NICK +18.2 II LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: II Max Delta Video Levels: Min Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: 11 Max Delta Adjacent Channels: Conclusion: 1 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH _AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Actual CH 2 +10.4 dBmV CH 2 40 10.5 dB CH 2 13.6 dB CH 41 19.5 dB Date: Cal Date: 06/01/95 C/N (dB) Hum Mod Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass F A I L WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Operator: J_J_JEROME :e: 08/29/95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB AC Voltage: Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +13.9 3 NCN +15.3 4 KOMO +16.2 5 KING +17.2 6 CHEK +18.0 0 8 PPV +17.2 BOX +16.5 14 HBO +17.3 15 SHOW +16.9 16 CMAX +16.5 17 CSPN +15.9 18 WTBS +15.7 19 QVC +15.9 20 TLC +17.2 21 E &G +17.2 22 CNN +16.7 7 KIRO +16.8 8 CHAN +16.9 9 KCTS +17.2 10 CKVU +17.4 11 KSTW +17.4 12 KVOS +14.3 13 KCPQ +17.2 23 FAM +17.6 24 CNBC +17.7 25 TNT +18.3 26 ESPN +18.7 27 CMT +18.4 28 A &E +18.1 29 DISC +18.6 30 H -N +18.9 TNN +19.1 TRAV +19.1 33 USA +19.7 34 PSNW +19.5 File: 24_HR_FCC Time: 20:15:30 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 18TH_ &_MCDONALD 18TH_ &_MCDONALD In 1 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: 56 V DC Voltage (reg): 24.3 V Audio (dBmV) -0.7 -0.5 +1.7 +2.7 +2.4 +1.7 +2.3 +1.7 +1.4 +1.4 +1.9 +0.7 +1.7 +1.8 +0.8 +1.7 +2.7 +2.1 +0.9 +3.0 +1.3 -0.5 +2.4 +2.1 +3.0 +3.4 +4.1 +3.1 +3.1 +3.4 +3.9 +4.1 +4.3 +4.4 +4.0 Delta V/A (dB) 14.6 15.8 14.5 14.5 15.6 15.5 14.2 15.6 15.5 15.1 14.0 15.0 14.2 15.4 16.4 15.0 14.1 14.8 16.3 14.4 16.1 14.8 14.8 15.5 14.7 14.9 14.6 15.3 15.0 15.2 15.0 15.0 14.8 15.3 15.5 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB C/N (dB) Page 1 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 2 Temp: +63 F (unreg): 30.0 V Hum Mod 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 I Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dB) +4.7 15.0 +4.7 15.0 +4.0 15.5 +2.3 16.1 +2.3 15.5 +2.9 14.9 -2.7 19.4 HI u..an Label Video (dBmV) II 35 TCM +19.7 36 DISN +19.7 37 TOON +19.5 I 38 LIFE +18.4 39 AMC +17.8 40 2SPN +17.8 41 NICK +16.7 I LIMIT CHECK Min Video Carrier Level: Max Delta Video Levels: III Min Delta V /A: Max Delta V /A: Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 1 1 1 Conclusion: Limit +0.0 dBmV 11.0 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB Reviewed: Date: Cal Date: 06/01/95 C/N (dB) Actual CH 2 +13.9 dBmV CH 2 36 5.8 dB CH 17 14.0 dB CH 41 19.4 dB Hum Mod Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail F A I L WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 I Operator: J_J_JEROME e: 08/30/95 1 1 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB AC Voltage: 56 V Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +1.0 3 NCN +15.4 HI 4 KOMO +16.2 HI 5 KING +17.5 HI 6 CHEK +17.9 HI Q8 PPV +17.5 HI BOX +17.7 HI 14 HBO +17.0 HI 15 SHOW +17.4 HI 16 CMAX +17.3 HI 17 CSPN +17.2 HI 18 WTBS +16.4 HI 19 QVC +17.0 HI 20 TLC +16.9 HI 21 E &G +17.6 HI 22 CNN +17.0 HI 7 KIRO +17.0 HI 8 CHAN +17.3 HI 9 KCTS +17.7 HI 10 CKVU +18.1 HI 11 KSTW +17.9 HI 12 KVOS +17.4 HI 13 KCPQ +16.2 HI 23 FAM +17.8 HI 24 CNBC +18.5 HI 25 TNT +18.8 HI 26 ESPN +19.0 HI 27 CMT +19.1 HI 28 A &E +18.8 HI 29 DISC +18.3 HI 30 H -N +18.2 HI TNN +16.4 HI TRAV +12.4 HI 33 USA +12.7 HI 34 PSNW +17.5 HI File: 24_HR_FCC Time: 02:15:30 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 18TH_ &_MCDONALD 18TH_ &_MCDONALD In 1 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: DC Voltage (reg): 24.3 V (unreg): 30.0 V Audio (dBmV) -35.9 -0.3 +1.6 +2.5 +2.1 +2.2 +2.5 +2.2 +2.4 +2.5 +2.5 +1.3 +2.3 +2.4 +1.1 +2.4 +2.7 +2.6 +1.9 +2.2 +3.0 +0.2 +2.9 +3.0 +3.8 +4.2 +5.0 +4.0 +3.8 +3.4 +2.8 -1.2 -4.1 +1.9 +3.8 Delta V/A (dB) 36.9 HI 15.7 14.6 15.0 15.8 15.3 15.2 14.8 15.0 14.8 14.7 15.1 14.7 14.5 16.5 14.6 14.3 14.7 15.8 15.9 14.9 17.2 HI 13.3 14.8 14.7 14.6 14.0 15.1 15.0 14.9 15.4 17.6 HI 16.5 10.8 13.7 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB C/N (dB) Page 1 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 3 Temp: +52 F Hum Mod 1 I Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Cal Date: 06/01/95 (-Ilan Label Video Audio Delta V/A C/N Hum Mod (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) (dB) I 35 TCM +19.5 HI +5.3 14.2 36 DISN +20.1 HI +5.5 14.6 37 TOON +21.0 HI +4.9 16.1 I 38 LIFE +19.9 HI +3.2 16.7 39 AMC +18.9 HI +3.7 15.2 40 2SPN +19.8 HI +5.0 14.8 II 41 NICK +18.9 HI -0.6 19.5 HI I LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +1.0 dBmV Pass I Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 2 37 20.0 dB Fail Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 33 10.8 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 2 36.9 dB Fail I Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Fail Conclusion: F A I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Reviewed: Date: I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT 1 Operator: J_J_JEROME :e: 08/30/95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Model: 3SR Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Amp ID: Power Config: Feeder Maker Config: Trunk Termination: Voltage Setting: Reverse Pad: +0.0 dB Forward Pad: +0.0 dB AC Voltage: 56 V Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +13.0 3 NCN +15.0 4 KOMO +15.6 5 KING +16.7 6 CHEK +17.0 0 8 PPV +17.1 BOX +17.4 14 HBO +17.3 15 SHOW +17.2 16 CMAX +16.8 17 CSPN +16.7 18 WTBS +16.2 19 QVC +17.1 20 TLC +17.7 21 E &G +17.7 22 CNN +17.6 7 KIRO +17.6 8 CHAN +18.1 9 KCTS +18.1 10 CKVU +18.9 11 KSTW +18.8 12 KVOS +17.7 13 KCPQ +18.1 23 FAM +18.6 24 CNBC +18.8 25 TNT +19.4 26 ESPN +19.1 27 CMT +19.8 28 A &E +19.1 29 DISC +19.7 30 H -N +19.3 TNN +18.8 TRAV +16.7 33 USA +13.5 34 PSNW +14.6 Page 1 Serial No: 5033227 Cal Date: 06/01/95 File: 24_HR_FCC Time: 08:15:30 18TH_ &_MCDONALD Trunk Bridger +0.0 dB 18TH_ &_MCDONALD 18TH_ &_MCDONALD In 1 Yes High Reverse Equalizer: Forward Equalizer: DC Voltage (reg): 24.3 V (unreg): 30.0 V Audio (dBmV) -1.7 -0.9 +1.2 +2.0 +1.3 +1.8 +1.7 +2.3 +1.6 +2.1 +2.5 +1.3 +2.5 +2.6 +2.3 +2.8 +3.6 +3.3 +3.2 +5.6 +3.2 +1.6 +4.0 +3.5 +4.3 +4.7 +5.2 +4.4 +4.3 +4.3 +3.7 +2.7 -0.7 -1.2 +2.4 Delta V/A (dB) 14.7 15.9 14.4 14.7 15.7 15.3 15.7 15.0 15.6 14.7 14.2 14.9 14.6 15.1 15.4 14.8 14.0 14.8 14.9 13.3 15.6 16.1 14.1 15.1 14.5 14.7 13.9 15.4 14.8 15.4 15.6 16.1 17.4 HI 14.7 12.2 +0.0 dB +0.0 dB Interval: 4 Temp: +45 F C/N (dB) Hum Mod WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 Cal Date: 06/01/95 1 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5033227 Lean Label Video Audio Delta V/A C/N Hum Mod (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) (dB) I 35 TCM +18.3 +4.8 13.5 36 DISN +19.6 +5.4 14.2 37 TOON +20.8 +5.5 15.3 I 38 LIFE +20.1 +4.5 15.6 39 AMC +20.2 +4.0 16.2 40 2SPN +18.7 +2.4 16.3 41 NICK +17.4 -1.9 19.3 HI I LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +13.0 dBmV Pass I Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 2 37 7.8 dB Pass Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 34 12.2 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 41 19.3 dB Fail 1 Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Fail Conclusion: F A I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Reviewed: Date: I WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST R rvrci Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 Operator: J_J_JEROME e: 08/28/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +17.6 3 NCN +18.2 4 KOMO +18.6 5 KING +19.4 6 CHEK +19.2 98 PPV +18.5 99 BOX +18.2 14 HBO +18.4 15 SHOW +18.2 16 CMAX +18.1 17 CSPN +17.8 18 WTBS +17.3 19 QVC +17.5 20 TLC +17.0 21 E &G +16.9 CNN +16.9 KIRO +17.3 8 CHAN +17.8 9 KCTS +19.5 10 CKVU +19.7 11 KSTW +18.9 12 KVOS +17.5 13 KCPQ +19.5 23 FAM +19.3 24 CNBC +19.4 25 TNT +19.6 26 ESPN +20.3 27 CMT +20.4 28 A &E +20.3 29 DISC +20.5 30 H -N +20.5 31 TNN +20.9 32 TRAV +20.8 33 USA +21.8 34 PSNW +21.5 35 TCM +22.2 36 DISN +22.0 37 TOON +21.7 38 LIFE +21.9 39 AMC +20.5 40 2SPN +20.2 NICK +20.9 File: AG_95FCC_PROOFS Time: 18:35:30 10TH_ &_N_STREET Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dB) +1.8 15.8 +1.9 16.3 +3.3 15.3 +4.0 15.4 +3.4 15.8 +2.6 15.9 +3.0 15.2 +2.7 15.7 +2.6 15.6 +2.7 15.4 +2.8 15.0 +1.6 15.7 +1.8 15.7 +1.6 15.4 +0.7 16.2 +2.0 14.9 +3.5 13.8 +3.5 14.3 +3.3 16.2 +2.8 16.9 +3.5 15.4 +1.4 16.1 +3.8 15.7 +3.5 15.8 +4.4 15.0 +5.0 14.6 +5.8 14.5 +5.1 15.3 +4.8 15.5 +5.1 15.4 +7.2 13.3 +5.8 15.1 +6.1 14.7 +6.7 15.1 +6.3 15.2 +6.4 15.8 +6.3 15.7 +6.3 15.4 +5.6 16.3 +4.2 16.3 +5.4 14.8 +4.8 16.1 C/N (dB) rage t Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 1 Temp: +75 F Hum Mod 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 I Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LA.MIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 21 +16.9 dBmV Pass Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 21 35 5.3 dB Pass Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 30 13.4 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 10 16.9 dB Pass 1 Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Pass Conclusion: P A S S 1 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Date: WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Model: 3SR Operator: J_J_JEROME e: 08/29/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Chan Label Video Audio (dBmV) (dBmV) 2 CBUT +17.7 +1.4 3 NCN +17.6 +1.3 4 KOMO +18.3 +3.2 5 KING +19.5 +4.2 6 CHEK +19.6 +2.9 98 PPV +18.3 +1.8 99 BOX +18.3 +3.6 14 HBO +19.0 +3.2 15 SHOW +18.6 +3.1 16 CMAX +18.5 +3.2 17 CSPN +18.3 +3.2 18 WTBS +17.7 +1.9 19 QVC +17.8 +2.0 20 TLC +17.6 +2.1 21 E &G +17.7 +1.0 9 2 CNN +17.4 +2.5 KIRO +17.6 +3.3 8 CHAN +18.3 +3.4 9 KCTS +18.9 +4.7 10 CKVU +20.6 +3.7 11 KSTW +19.4 +3.8 12 KVOS +18.6 +2.1 13 KCPQ +19.9 +4.4 23 FAM +19.6 +3.9 24 CNBC +20.1 +4.8 25 TNT +20.5 +5.4 26 ESPN +20.9 +6.2 27 CMT +20.8 +5.3 28 A &E +20.4 +5.2 29 DISC +21.0 +5.6 30 H -N +21.2 +5.9 31 TNN +21.1 +6.1 32 TRAV +21.5 +6.5 33 USA +21.9 +6.9 34 PSNW +21.8 +6.6 35 TCM +22.1 +6.6 36 DISN +21.9 +6.0 37 TOON +21.1 +5.0 38 LIFE +20.6 +5.8 39 AMC +21.7 +7.1 40 2SPN +22.7 +7.3 s:1 NICK +22.4 +6.0 Serial No: 5023129 File: AG95FCC_PROOFS Time: 00 35:30 10TH_ &_N_STREET Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Delta V/A (dB) 16.3 16.3 15.1 15.3 16.7 16.5 14.7 15.8 15.5 15.3 15.1 15.8 15.8 15.5 16.7 14.9 14.3 14.9 14.2 16.9 15.6 16.5 15.5 15.7 15.3 15.1 14.7 15.5 15.2 15.4 15.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.2 15.5 15.9 16.1 14.8 14.6 15.4 16.4 Page 1 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 2 Temp: +52 F C/N (dB) Hum Mod 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 1 Mode1:"3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual I Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 22 +17.4 dBmV Pass Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 22 40 5.3 dB Pass Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 9 14.2 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 10 16.9 dB Pass Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Pass Conclusion: P A S S 1 1 Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1; 1 1 Date: WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 1 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Operator: J_J_JEROME e: 08/29/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: Area: Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT +4.9 3 NCN +18.5 HI 4 KOMO +18.9 HI 5 KING +19.8 HI 6 CHEK +19.6 HI 98 PPV +18.5 HI 99 BOX +18.6 HI 14 HBO +19.1 HI 15 SHOW +18.7 HI 16 CMAX +18.6 HI 17 CSPN +18.6 HI 18 WTBS +17.3 HI 19 QVC +17.6 HI 20 TLC +17.3 HI 21 E &G +17.2 HI 22 CNN +17.5 HI KIRO +17.5 HI 8 CHAN +17.9 HI 9 KCTS +18.5 HI 10 CKVU +20.7 HI 11 KSTW +19.2 HI 12 KVOS +18.6 HI 13 KCPQ +19.4 HI 23 FAM +19.3 HI 24 CNBC +19.4 HI 25 TNT +20.0 HI 26 ESPN +20.2 HI 27 CMT +20.4 HI 28 A &E +19.6 HI 29 DISC +20.1 HI 30 H -N +20.7 HI 31 TNN +21.0 HI 32 TRAV +21.2 HI 33 USA +21.9 HI 34 PSNW +21.9 HI 35 TCM +22.0 HI 36 DISN +22.1 HI 37 TOON +21.6 HI 38 LIFE +22.0 HI 39 AMC +21.0 HI 40 2SPN +20.3 HI NICK +21.3 HI File: AG_95FCC_PROOFS Time: 06:35:30 10TH_ &_N_STREET Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Audio (dBmV) -35.3 +2.5 +3.7 +4.5 +3.2 +2.4 +3.5 +3.4 +3.1 +3.1 +3.3 +1.7 +1.7 +1.9 +0.8 +2.2 +3.3 +2.9 +3.3 +4.0 +4.1 +2.3 +4.4 +3.4 +4.2 +4.9 +5.7 +4.9 +4.6 +4.9 +6.4 +5.8 +6.1 +6.7 +6.4 +6.5 +6.5 +6.7 +6.2 +4.4 +5.7 +5.4 Delta V/A (dB) 40.2 HI 16.0 15.2 15.3 16.4 16.1 15.1 15.7 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.6 15.9 15.4 16.4 15.3 14.2 15.0 15.2 16.7 15.1 16.3 15.0 15.9 15.2 15.1 14.5 15.5 15.0 15.2 14.3 15.2 15.1 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.6 14.9 15.8 16.6 14.6 15.9 Interval: 3 Temp: +55 F C/N (dB) Hum Mod 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Page 2 II Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual II Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +4.9 dBmV Pass Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 2 36 17.2 dB Fail Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 7 14.2 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 2 40.2 dB Fail I Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Fail Conclusion: F A I L 1 Reviewed: Date: II WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REPORT Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 1 1 1 Operator: J_J_JEROME e: 08/29/95 Location Name: Location Type: Test Point Compensation: I Area: Chan Label Video Audio (dBmV) (dBmV) 2 CBUT +12.9 -1.4 3 NCN +14.1 -2.4 4 KOMO +15.0 +0.6 5 KING +17.3 +2.4 6 CHEK +17.4 +1.6 98 PPV +17.9 +2.8 99 BOX +19.0 +3.8 14 HBO +19.3 +3.6 15 SHOW +19.1 +3.9 16 CMAX +19.3 +3.9 17 CSPN +19.1 +4.3 18 WTBS +18.6 +2.6 19 QVC +18.0 +2.8 20 TLC +18.5 +3.2 21 E &G +18.6 +2.9 '2 CNN +18.6 +3.9 KIRO +19.1 +4.7 8 CHAN +20.0 +6.0 9 KCTS +21.1 +4.5 10 CKVU +21.0 +5.3 11 KSTW +20.7 +5.0 12 KVOS +19.4 +4.0 13 KCPQ +21.0 +5.5 23 FAM +20.9 +5.2 24 CNBC +21.0 +6.0 25 TNT +21.4 +6.3 26 ESPN +21.6 +6.9 27 CMT +21.4 +6.1 28 A &E +21.2 +6.0 29 DISC +21.6 +6.0 30 H -N +21.6 +5.9 31 TNN +21.7 +6.1 32 TRAV +21.4 +6.5 33 USA +21.8 +6.5 34 PSNW +21.6 +6.3 35 TCM +21.6 +5.7 36 DISN +21.2 +5.1 37 TOON +20.6 +5.3 38 LIFE +21.1 +6.2 39 AMC +21.8 +6.6 40 2SPN +22.1 +6.4 J" NICK +21.6 +4.8 File: AG_95FCC_PROOFS Time: 12:35:30 10TH &_N_STREET Field Test +0.0 dB PORT_ANGELES Delta (dB 14.3 16.5 14.4 14.9 15.8 15.1 15.2 15.7 15.2 15.4 14.8 16.0 15.2 15.3 15.7 14.7 14.4 14.0 16.6 15.7 15.7 15.4 15.5 15.7 15.0 15.1 14.7 15.3 15.2 15.6 15.7 15.6 14.9 15.3 15.3 15.9 16.1 15.3 14.9 15.2 15.7 16.8 V/A Page 1 Cal Date: 06/01/95 Interval: 4 Temp: +68 F C/N (dB) Hum Mod 1 WAVETEK STEALTH AUTO TEST REP6RI ray= a 1 Model: 3SR Serial No: 5023129 Cal Date: 06/01/95 LIMIT CHECK Limit Actual Min Video Carrier Level: +0.0 dBmV CH 2 +12.9 dBmV Pass I Max Delta Video Levels: 11.0 dB CH 2 40 9.2 dB Pass Min Delta V /A: 10.0 dB CH 8 14.0 dB Pass Max Delta V /A: 17.0 dB CH 41 16.8 dB Pass 1 Max Delta Adjacent Channels: 3.0 dB Pass 1 Conclusion: Reviewed: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Date: i P A S S Cable Communications Consultants 1 ANNUAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THECITYQFPORT ,ANGELES February 12 ,1997 5, c,JOA Consultants to: Local Government Specializing in Cable Television: Franchising Community Needs-Assessments Refranchising Ordinance Preparation Access Franchise Administration Evaluation Negotiation 504 East Main Street Auburn .WA 98002 (206) 833 -8380 1 -800= 222 -9697 FAX (206) 833 -8430 City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report NATIONAL Legislative 1996, for a change, was a year when the Congress had more important items on its agenda than inserting anymore monkey wrenches in the not so well oiled machinery of cities regulation of cable television franchises. While Senator John McClain (R) Arizona, an avowed deregulator, will become the new chairperson of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittees, it appears that the major issues in this field to be considered in the new session will be encryption, copyright and privacy. The cable operators trade association, NCTA, has said that they will have no major lobbying efforts in 1997. Perhaps. Tudicial While quiet may have prevailed on the Congressional level, as usual the courts at all levels were deeply immersed in areas of local governments authority, or lack of same, as well as broader issues affecting the cable industry. As far as the cable providers are concerned 1997 should turn out to be a happy new year for them with the Supreme Court apparently poised to rule the "must carry" rule unconstitutional. This is the regulation that mandated that cable operators carry all locally originated stations regardless of size. A concomitant result will probably be a decision affecting the retransmission consent wherein stations reimbursed the cable operator for the privilege of having its signal carried over a cable system. A result of this anticipated ruling expected to be made by June 30, 1997 will undoubtedly be a further juggling of channel lineups to yet further confuse bewildered subscribers. -1- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report Another case being heard by the 7th District Circuit court is that of a small Kentucky town, Sturgis, who refused to grant a long term franchise to its incumbent operator because the city claimed the operator's proposal was insufficient to meet the community's cable related needs and interests. The implications of this to local governments in their next renewal process is obvious. The "hot button" issue for cities in 1996 was right -of -way management in view of other cable or telephone providers appearing on the scene. This principle is now being tested in a lawsuit brought by TCI against Troy, N.Y. The city checked TCI from laying additional fiber optic cable claiming that TCI planned to use it for other communications purposes and to thus avoid paying a franchise fee and other considerations. TCI is charging abuse of the city's rights -of -way authority. Stay tuned. Another pending case of interest to local regulators is one while applicable only to California at present, raises the old chestnut that franchise fees should cover only the cost of regulation. Of a similar vein, although not strictly a legal matter yet is a proposal in Florida to lump all fees, taxes, etc. imposed on cable operators by cities and counties in one package capped out 1 Naturally we will be following all of these matters closely in this new year. Technology Probably the most dramatic technical breakthrough in 1996 was, in a sense, not a technical advance, but an announcement from the FCC that it would approve (finally) standards for High Definition Television (HDTV). This will provide much more clear and sharp images on the television screen. The networks say, but don't count on it, that they will be broadcasting -2- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report "some" HDTV signals in 1998 to new sets equipped to accept this new technology. Other estimates say that HDTV (or in the new cable jargon, just "DTV will be received by only 15 to 20% of subscribers by the year 2001. While press releases continue to be issued by the cable operator's research and development laboratories, digital compression, that is a systems whereby a single channel of 6 mgh can be altered to carry a number of channels, perhaps up to six, there has been no further practical breakthrough in this revolutionary concept. Tests continue. Costs increase. The cable industry, perhaps a bit belatedly, is reacting positively to access to the Internet via cable. While giant TCI is still cautious in its approach and is only test marketing modem usage, other operators are dipping deeper into the waters. Times Warner has 400,000 homes available for modems in Ohio and New York. Adelphia has 250,000 in Florida. Cablevision, is offering modems in selected markets in New York and Connecticut for $44.95 a month plus $150.00 installation. General While municipalities were still struggling with interpretation of telecommunication rules, the forthcoming reduction of basic rate changes to an annual basis by the cable operators, and the vexatious questions of rights of -way management, 1996 was, for the cable industry itself, a year no progress and belt tightening. While there was a modest increase nationally in the number of subscribers from 62,956,160 to 64,054,160 for the year, the last six months of the year, ominously, showed no increase at all. This trend was not due to the long anticipated and long not forthcoming competition from telephone companies, but more to a general malaise with the current subscriber -3- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report population. While alternate suppliers, largely direct broadcast systems (DBS), made some inroads, on the whole, they did not enjoy a banner year either. Because of the heavy subsidization of the (DBS) installation price at present, analysts are wondering how soon it will be before these prices rise to market costs and further slow its growth. Once again the "threat" to the cable industry by Telcos a "threat" existing largely in the eye of cable lobbyists failed to materialize. Indeed it would appear that the Baby Bills are moving away from interest in cable and are concentrating their resources on entering the long distance market. The only appearance telephone companies have made into cable is by buying existing cable systems. Hardly the stuff from which competition is made. In summary, although facing no new Federal legislation, 1997 will be a difficult year for local government. Cities will be caught in crossfire as attacks on its rights -of -way management will come from all sides. The issues of master telecommunications local legislation is up in the air as questions of too early commitment, right -of -way reimbursement and most favored nation equity remain largely unresolved. -4- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report REGIONAL An important issue to be closely watched in the region in 1997 is the legislative attempt in Olympia by US West to diminish the authority of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to regulate rates new entrants would pay to interconnect with US West's facilities. Of even greater impact to local government is draft legislation proposed by the Washington State Cable Communications Association to apply sales tax to cable operators and convert count and city taxation to a system wherein only the State would assess taxes. While this proposal does not yet address the question of franchise fees, the entire issue of payment for rights -of -way in under scrutiny at virtually every legislative and judicial level. -5- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report LOCAL We have discussed the impact of cable on the national and regional basis. In addition, there have been a number of issues that have had an impact on the local cable operation during 1996. Franchise Fees Although the City of Port Angeles is not a rate regulatory entity, Northland Cable still uses some of the aspects of Federal Rate Regulations in setting its rates. Due to this and all of the uncertainty concerning rate regulation, it is still extremely difficult to estimate the franchise fees that the City of Port Angeles may collect for the upcoming year. Regardless of the challenge presented by these facts, we feel confident that we are in a position to present the City with the most accurate estimate available. We estimate that the final franchise fees to be collected in 1996 will be $117,000 and the estimated payment to be received from the operator in 1997 will be $129,000. As always, and especially in this coming year, we will continue to monitor the franchise fees collected by the City and keep staff advised of any discrepancies. Proof of Performance As we have discussed with the City previously, the cable operator is required by FCC rules to execute Proof of Performance testing at least two times a year. We met with the operator at the end of the year to review the reports and determine that they continue to comply with any new standards. We have determined the cable operator to be in compliance as expected. -6- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report We have attached those portions of the reports that may be of greatest value to you, keeping in mind that much of the data collected is complicated and not of great interest to most. These portions are attached as Appendix "A" for your review. Should anyone within the City be interested, we would be glad to meet and discuss this information in more detail. Senior Citizen /Disabled Person Discounts Discounts for individuals that meet certain age or disability guidelines and that also meet Washington State HUD Housing low income standards now are receiving discounts on the basic services they receive from Northland. It is one of our functions this year to handle the certification process for the City and to continue with the ongoing monitoring of the individuals receiving the discounts. As a part of this year's report we thought that the City might be interested in looking at the current list of those persons receiving the discount. Some of these individuals were taken from a list already in place by Northland and others were handled as original applicants through our office. There are now a total of 227 subscribers receiving the discounted basic rate. The list starts on the following page. -7- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants City of Port Angeles 1996 Annual Report SERVICE REQUESTS Below we have presented a breakdown of the service calls received by Northland for a typical 30 -day period. These figures were obtained from logs maintained by the Operator. SERVICE CALL DIAGNOSIS Reason for Call of Calls Trunk /Distribution 3 Bad Fittings 13 Drop (subscriber feeder) 18 Customer Education 4 Customer Equipment (i.e. VCR, T.V.) 10 O No Problem Discovered 5 Total 53 -8- 3 -H Cable Communications Consultants CITY OF PORT ANGELES SENIOR CITIZEN /DISABLED DISCOUNT APPLICANTS Name Date Name Date Adams, Leah, L. 217 6/22/96 Cox, Tony A 14 3/11/96 Adams, Martha 1 1/26/96 Crowder,Estelle, C 150 3/20/96 Aggergaad, Mary E 84 3/12/96 Curse, Elbert, R. 213 6/24/96 Allison, Martha 85 3/8/96 Dailidenas, Mary 25 3/11/96 Adams, Wallace 173 3/11/96 Davidson, Dorothy 34 3/11/96 Anderson, Clara, E 165 3/24/96 Davidson, Virginia 162 3/27/96 Anderson, Elizabeth, D. 185 5/5/96 Davis, Zoraj. 182 4/24/96 Anding, Hazel, M. 59 3/8/96 Day, Margurette 71 3/11/96 Anton, Charles 100 3/12/96 Deckedach, John 9 2/22/96 Auman, Ina, F 137 3/19/96 Defines, A. Marjone 92 3/9/96 Ausec, Della, P 132 3/14/96 Delaney, Velma 104 3/13/96 Austin, Pete 83 3/12/96 Delo, Catherine 39 3/11/96 Avery, Lonse,D. 171 4/3/96 Dilling, Emily 145 3/20/96 Baker, Audry 224 7/3/96 Doerge, Evelyn 146 3/20/96 Baker, Patncia A. 48 3/8/96 Douglas, Mrs. B. C. 46 3/8/96 Bartels, Marione, J. 153 3/13/96 Duncan, Alvin, L. 190 5/17/96 Beam, Frances, E. 61 2/10/96 Dunden, Nancy 206 6/22/96 Beckett, Margaret, H 202 6/22/96 Edris, Eugne 30 3/10/96 Beding, Gwen, Michelle 232 9/4/96 Elders, Ira 78 3/11/96 Bendixen, Clifford 216 6/25/96 Enckson, Donna Joan 18 3/11/96 Berry, Phyllis, M. 65 3/9/96 Fearguson, Nova, L. 151 3/18/96 Bessey, Doris M 89 3/11/96 Flores, Abraham 234 9/12/96 Betts, Minam Winona 21 3/11/96 Frazier, Mardell 194 6/24/96 Binder, Leota 112 1/13/96 Gabeau, Monica 221 7/8/96 Blood, Frances, A. 120 3/13/96 Gallacci, Angela 188 5/9/96 Blundeau, Virginia 138 3/18/96 Gallagher, Rachel 215 6/24/96 Bonotto, Arline 231 8/22/96 Gollocci, Angelo or Emily 110 3/13/96 Boos, Jane 160 3/26/96 Gourley, Robert 141 3/8/96 Bowes, Myrtle, A 105 3/11/96 Grahm, Robert, W. 115 3/13/96 Bowlby, James, F. 154 3/22/96 Grall, Arabella 87 3/12/96 Box Cathenne G. 88 3/11/96 Grim, Gerry 63 3/10/96 Brandland, Orville 15 3/11/96 Hale, Lela 19 3/8/96 Browder, Lilyan, M. 139 3/19/96 Hall, Bonnie 6 2/8/96 Bruce, May 67 3/8/96 Hamilton, Ceil 158 3/19/96 Buettner, Bea 208 6/21/96 Hanssen,Gerald 000 12/17/96 Cagney, Jackie 95 3/8/96 Hash, Doris 191 4/11/96 Caldwell, Sarah. Ellen 184 5/1/96 Hathaway, Missy 226 8/6/96 Camponni, Emma 22 3/10/96 Hefley,E.C. 142 3/9/96 Cargo, Patncia, E. 225 7/26/96 Hendnx, Ella, M. 116 3/14/96 Carpenter, George 2 2/7/96 Henderson, Andy Margie 17 3/11/96 Carpenter, Marione 163 3/29/96 Hines, Jim 217 6/25/96' Camveau, Edna, F 235 9/3/96 Hollander, 140 3/18/96 Chavis, Frances,I. 79 3/11/96 Houk, JessieS. 4 2/1/96 Chrysler,Gage 180 4/12/96 Howell, Clara, K. 172 4/2/96 Cipnano, Vincent M. 238 11/05/96 Huff, Laura 152 3/20/9 Clark, Jessie, L. 121 3/14/96 Isenberger, Helen 147 3/21/96 Clubertson,F.M 168 4/5/96 Jepson, A.R. 200 6/20/96 Cochran, Valera Jirikowic, Winifred, M. 136 3/20/96 Cofer, Frances 192 5/26/96 Johnson, Frances 207 5/9/96 Cogbum, Analayne 167 3/27/96 Johnson Walter M. 42 3/9/96 Conklin. Annie 26 3/11/96 Jones, Helen, M. 128 3/8/96 Conrad. Lela M. 37 3/8/96 Jones, Sally 41 3/9/96 Cotton. Rosa, L 222 7/3/96 Jones, Vera,F. 159 3/26/96 CITY OF PORT ANGELES SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABLED DISCOUNT APPLICANTS Name Date Name Date Kasakan, Rachel 12 3/8/96 Pettigrew, Arlene, J. 117 3/13/96 Keend, Arlene J. 38 3/8/96 Pmgel, Calvin 64 3/9/96 Keller, Manlyn 27 3/8/96 Pinord, Lila, L. 75 3/11/96 Keneally, Patnck, F 131 3/14/96 Porter, Elsie M. 000 12/23/96 Kienholz, Harriet, E 125 3/16/96 Pringle, Norman D. 57 3/8/96 Kiiski, Virginia, L. 108 3/12/96 Pratt, Mavis, D. 101 3/12/96 Kiser, Frank, E. 156 3/23/96 Prowley, James 212 6/21/96 Klemmer, Michael S 44 3/8/96 Puffer, Nita 99 3/13/96 Koch, Loyd O. 80 3/12/96 Reed, Margeret A. 54 3/11/96 Konopaski, Frances 69 3/8/96 Reed,Mildred 167 4/3/96 Kushman, Helen E. 29 3/8/96 Rhoads, Virginia M. 45 3/9/96 LaBelle, Dolly 189 5/12/96 Rice, Helen 76 3/11/96 LaRue, Albert 235 9/24/96 Robertson, J.B. 114 3/12/96 Lankford. Mary, B. 193 5/24/96 Rogers, Anna 195 6/13/96 Larue,Evan 166 3/8/96 Rogeers, Edith 203 6/21/96 Lelo, Thomas 230 7/18/96 Rosen, Hattie 52 3/8/96 Loell, Tom 181 4/23/96 Ross, Harry, A. 118 3/13/96 Logan, Mildred, K. 111 3/13/96 Ross, Ray, E. 143 3/19/96 Lundberg. Vera 50 3/9/96 Rupp, Lois, G 194 6/17/96 Lucero, Frank, S 211 6/24/96 Rudolph, Jean 68 3/8/96 Ludke, Olga 109 3/12/96 Russo, Frances 198 6/22/96 Machenheimer, James 16 3/11/96 Rutherford, Samuel W. 7 2/12/96 Mallary, Louise, K. 199 6/22/96 Schaefer,Patricia, L 127 3/9/96 Mangano. Phyllis J. 51 3/9/96 Schott, Arnold 119 3/13/96 Marks, Annabelle 2 3/9/96 Schmidt, Fred, H. 122 3/11/96 Mantn, Gina 96 4/4/96 Schott, Ethel, E 187 5/9/96 Marty, Phyllis 24 3/11/96 Scott, Bernell 93 3/9/96 Mason, Bernice L. 86 3/11/96 Settles, Laura, M. 224 7/15/96 Malvey, Helena 107 3/15/96 Sherwin, Maxine 82 3/11/96 Malvin, Zella 103 3/12/96 Simpson, Evelyn V. 28 3/9/96 Mathews, Belvin 123 3/13/96 Smally, Cheryl 122 3/11/96 Maxey, Sharon Rose 96 3/11/96 Snider, Frank 10 3/9/96 McAllister, Mary 214 6/26/96 Snow, Verne, E. 106 3/11/96 McAlpin. Theresa 35 3/11/96 Stanley, William L. 90 3/11/96 McClanahan 134 3/17/96 Stanton, Gaitha, M. 74 3/12/96 McCoy, Thelma 40 3/11/96 Stark, Cynthia 166 4/3/96 McElravy 77 3/18/96 Stevens, Loretta A. 33 3/11/96 McManus 164 3/27/96 Stewart, Lois D. 56 3/9/96 Meszaros. Lanette 205 6/21/96 Storrs, Ethel 43 3/9/96 Moseley. Henery 201 6/21/96 Stossel, Jennie 5 2/2/96 Mudd, Carl. J. 135 3/8/96 Sweagle, Gwen, M. 62 3/9/96 Nelson, Avaline C 94 3/11/96 Swmption, Mike 223 7/3/96 Nielsen. Carmen 8 2/12/96 Taggart, Floyd and Billie 121 3/9/96 Oel, Gu) 97 3/11/96 Thomas, Alice 53 3/8/96 Olson, Dorothy R. 32 3/11/96 Torres, Joseph, D. 149 3/13/96 Parker, Esther, V. 194 6/7/96 Townsend, Mildred 204 6/22/96 Pavlak, Alfred E. 72 3/10/96 Tnllingham, Jean 91 3 /11/96 Pazan, Andrew 216 6/24/96 Tuttle, Elmer 130 3/15/96 Pelky, Nance 136 3/18/96 Uny, Clifford 169 4/4/96 Penny, Rachel 209 6/21/96 Vancise, Teresa 31 3/11/96 Perdew, Clifford 3 1/30/96 Vinney, Sarah 170 4/2/96 Pennt, Margaret, A. 98 3/8/96 Virginia,Alice 161 3/29/96 Peters, Glen 70 3/10/96 Waldgroup, Elsie 157 3/26/96 CITY OF PORT ANGELES SENIOR CITIZEN /DISABLED DISCOUNT APPLICANTS Name Date Name Walker, John 227 7/22/96 Waller, Louise 73 3/11/96 Weller, Barbara 11 2/27/96 Wheeler,Phyllis,I 144 3/18/96 Williams, Cecil 174 3/29/96 Williams, Delons 210 6/42196 Williams, Elizabeth, L. 229 7/23/96 Williams, Mrs. Thomas, J. 102 3/19/96 Williams, Phyllis 36 3/9/96 Winters, Lorraine 233 9/9/96 Witter, Dorothy M. 58 3/8/96 Wilson, Andrew J. 13 2/28/96 Woolery Irene M. 81 3/12/96 Wozniak, Casey, A. 133 3/19/96 Wrobel, Alvin, J. 155 3/22/96 Wyman, Kay 49 3/9/96 1,1 Date StcgftA ARc PORT 96 Model 3SR Operator J_J_JEROME Date 08/16/96 Time 17.06 26 Descnption Page 1 Location Location Type Test Pnt Type Test Pnt Comp Area AC Voltage Chan Label 2 CBUT 3 NCN 4 KOMO 5 KING 6 CHEK 7 KIRO 8 CHAN 9 KCTS 10 CKVU 11 KSTW 12 KVOS 13 KCPQ 14 HBO 15 SHOW 16 CMAX 17 CSPN 18 WTBS 19 QVC 20 TLC 21 CITY 22 HN 23 FAM 24 CNBC 25 TNT 26 ESPN 18TH &MCDONALD FieldTest Undefined 0.0 #2LHURD 60 Video (dBmV) 11 1 11 3 12 1 134 127 144 14.5 153 152 146 15 1 15.2 11.7 126 13.1 132 139 140 14 1 14 4 14 5 15 0 155 156 159 AutoTest Report Serial 5023129 File: L HURD_ #2 AmpID: 8AM27 &88232 Power Cfg IN Feeder Maker Cfg 4 Trunk Term. YES Voltage Setting HI DC Voltage (reg): 17.0 Audio (dBmV) -3.8 -3 3 -2 7 2 0 -1 7 -0 5 0 1 00 04 -0 2 02 0.3 -2 7 2.3 -1 8 -1 9 -1 3 -1 1 -1.1 -0 8 -0.5 -0.2 0.6 00 0.7 Delta V/A (dB) 149 146 14.8 154 144 149 146 15.3 148 148 14.9 149 144 14.9 149 15.1 152 15 1 152 152 150 15.2 14 9 156 15.2 C/N (dB) Reverse Pad Forward Pad Rev Equalizer Fwd Equalizer. Temp DC Voltage (unreg) Hum Cal Date 04 /23/96 DOS File 2LHURD 000 00 0.0 0.0 4.0 62 1 F 32.0 Mod 0€ACfAti✓41 MC N �VETaK StottAliIARC Reviewed PORT 96 Model 3SR Operator J J_JEROME Date 08/16/96 Time 17 06 26 Descnption LIMIT CHECK Min Video Camer Level Max Delta Video Level Min Delta V/A Max Delta V/A Max Delta Adjacent Chan Min Camer to Noise Max Hum Conclusion AutoTest Report Chan Label Video Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) 27 CNN 15 6 0 1 15.5 28 A &E 15.3 0.2 151 29 DISC 151 -14 16.5 30 MNBC 13 4 -1.8 15.2 31 TNN 14 2 -1.0 15.2 32 TRAV 14 8 -1 1 15.9 33 USA 14 6 -0 4 15 0 34 PSNW 15 3 0 1 15.2 35 TCM 157 02 155 36 CMT 156 00 156 37 TOON 15.2 0 0 15.2 38 LIFE 15 6 0 0 15.6 39 AMC 15 6 0.2 15.4 40 2SPN 15 2 0 3 14.9 41 NICK 15 9 0 6 15 3 42 DISN 15 6 0 0 15.6 98 NWNC 12 8 -2 5 15.3 99 BOX 12 4 -3 0 15 4 Limit 0 0 dBmV 12.0 dB 100dB 17.0 dB 3.0 dB 460 dB 3.0 Serial 5023129 File' L_HURD_#2 Location 18TH &MCDONALD C/N Hum (dB) Date. Actual Ch 2 11.1 Ch 26 and 2, Delta 4.8 Ch 6 Delta V/A 14.4 Ch 29 Delta V/A 16 5 Ch 30, Ch 29, Delta Video 1.7 No data No data Cal Date 04/23/96 DOS File: 2LHURD.000 Area #2LHURD Mod _OteA tAlviqFte Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass PASS Page 2 NA/AVETEK ,StcAftA44oC RefOdB PORT_96 �..,\Z" C t \�C\ \C -s 55.25 Area: Port Angeles Location: 18th /McDonald Sweep Graph Max -Min GID 145.25 MHz 277.26 MHz Q 132.01 MHz 1 dBldiv Stealth AeACtAWARe 24 MHz/Div 397.26 +1.8 dB +1.0 dB -0.5 dB +1.5 dB Operator: JJJ Date: 07/09/96 File: #18WWS Time: 14:53 DOS File: #18WWS.SWP Description: Last trunk amp that feeds 18th McDonald street. W�VaT>EK PORT 96 Model 3SR Operator J_J JEROME Date 08/16/96 Time 17.12 38 Descnption Page 1 Location 10TH&N Location Type FieldTest Test Pnt Type Undefined Test Pnt Comp 0.0 Area #1IHURD AC Voltage. 60 Chan Label Video (dBmV) 2 CBUT 11 1 3 NCN 11 3 4 KOMO 13.2 5 KING 13 8 6 CHEK 13 9 7 KIRO 15 5 8 CHAN 15 7 9 KCTS 15 8 10 CKVU 16.1 11 KSTW 15 4 12 KVOS 16 3 13 KCPQ 16.2 14 HBO 13 9 15 SHOW 14 1 16 CMAX 14 8 17 CSPN 14 8 18 WTBS 15.2 19 QVC 15 6 20 TLC 15 5 21 CITY 15 2 22 HN 15 1 23 FAM 17.0 24 CNBC 171 25 TNT 17 2 26 ESPN 16.8 AutoTest Report Senal# 5023129 File: L HURD #1 AmpID. 8AM27 &8B232 Reverse Pad Power Cfg IN Forward Pad Feeder Maker Cfg 4 Rev Equalizer. Trunk Term. YES Fwd Equalizer: Voltage Setting HI Temp: DC Voltage (reg) 17 0 DC Voltage (unreg) Audio (dBmV) -3.0 -2.8 -2.1 -1 1 -0 6 0.4 0.4 0.5 14 14 1.5 15 -1 0 -0 4 -0 4 -0 4 01 02 02 00 00 2.0 20 16 1.7 Delta V/A (dB) 14.1 14.1 153 14.9 14.5 15.1 153 153 14.7 14.0 14.8 14.7 14.9 14.5 152 15.2 15.1 154 15.3 152 15 1 150 15 1 15.6 15.1 C/N (dB) Hum Cal Date 04/23/96 DOS File: L HURD #.000 0.0 0.0 00 4.0 62.1 F 32.0 Mod N/VraVTeK stc4(010 aRe Model 3SR Operator J_J_JEROME Date. 08/16/96 Time. 17 12 38 Descnption LIMIT CHECK Min Video Camer Level. Max Delta Video Level Min Delta V/A Max Delta V/A Max Delta Adjacent Chan Min Camer to Noise Max Hum Conclusion Reviewed PORT 96 AutoTest Report Limit 0 0 dBmV 120 dB 10.0 dB 17.0 dB 30 dB 460 dB 30% Serial 5023129 File: L HURD #1 Location. 10TH&N Chan Label Video Audio Delta V/A (dBmV) (dBmV) (dB) 27 CNN 17.1 1 4 15.7 28 A &E 16 7 0 6 16.1 29 DISC 16 5 1 0 15.5 30 MNBC 16 3 0 9 15 4 31 TNN 16.7 0 8 15 9 32 TRAV 16 7 0 8 15.9 33 USA 15 9 0 8 15 1 34 PSNW 16 7 1 7 15.0 35 TCM 17.0 1 1 15 9 36 CMT 16 9 1 5 15 4 37 TOON 16 9 1 3 15.6 36 LIFE 17 1 1 4 15 7 39 AMC 17.3 1 8 15 5 40 2SPN 16 9 1.8 15 1 41 NICK 17 5 2 3 15.2 42 DISN 177 22 155 98 NWNC 14 3 -0 8 15.1 99 BOX 14 5 -1 1 15 6 C/N (dB) Hum Actual Ch 2 11.1 Ch 42 and 2, Delta 6 6 Ch 11 Delta V/A 14.0 Ch 28 Delta V/A 16 1 Ch 4, Ch 3, Delta Video 1.9 No data No data Date. -eite4 Cal Date 04/23/96 DOS File L HURD #.000 Area #1IHURD Mod Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass PASS Page 2 \4VETEK ,CtcAttAl4i4Rg 1Ref 0 dB PORT 96 s A N s s r N -\NN N 's.s\s`s.`,.„.■s,'\‘‘.\-\\'‘ N N ,S., \\S". '''n'•-.', \V', \I, s ''s N ''''s"' -1''s s N 155.25 24 MHz/Div Max-Min +1.7 dB GD 145.25 MHz +0.4 dB 1 0 277.26 MHz -0.4 dB A 132.01 MHz +0.7 dB Sweep Graph 1 dB/div Operator: JJJ File: #16WWS DOS File: #16WWS.SWP Description: Last trunk amp that feeds 10th Nst Area: Port Angeles Location: 10th/Nst Date: 07/09/96 Time: 11:42 _OtetgetA4Arte Stealth! 397.261 01.'21'97 10:38 $12064575901 NORTHLAND CABLE win bEtlE 11-146 W. Dunscomb 11 -1.98 R. Henn. 11 -1-88 YMCA 114-96 A Hit 11.4 -95 T. Wood 11-5-98 M. McCartney 11-5-98 T. HeSnan 11-5-96 T. Lusk 114-86 P. Boroughs 11226 R. &tones, Sr. 114-98 E. Gilson 11-6-96 H. Horstm an 11.746 M. Burgess 114-98 M. Cochran 114 -66 PA Fire Dept. 11$26 P. Schauweker 11 -1148 Peninsula Colege 11 -11-96 P. Abafaras 11 -12-96 J. Brooks 11 -13-96 G. Telef§an 11 -13-98 R. Hoharm 11 -14-9B L. Childers 11 -14.56 E. Richardson 1144 -98 R. Patton 11 -15-96 V. Davidson 11 -15-96 P. Coughlan 11 -15-86 J. Cummings 11- 18.96 J. Lyons 11 -18-86 B. Fbdstrim 11 -1928 T. Neudorfer 11 -18-9H M. Broom 11-20-96 R. Elmer 11-20-96 S. Gibert 11 -2045 E. Richardson 11 -22.86 C. Houston 112246 V. Davidson 11-25-98 M. Greubel 11-2748 R.. Spencer 11-4-98 C. Toliver 11446 A. Francis 11 -5-98 1Vl. Degnan 112-46 Zaks 11-746 M. McCartney 11 -1126 H. Smih 11 -1146 T. Zimmer 11 -1328 Uptown Motel 11 -14-98 D. Capaan 11 -18 -98 F. Gabriel 11-22-98 B. Grande 11-28-98 V. Cox 11-27-96 A MGCuIy PORT ANGELES CR'Y TROUBLE CALLS NOVEIMER 1996 ADDRESS 3817 McGill 3922 Nygren PL 302 S. Francis 1322 E. 8 710 Caroline 1508 W. et 126 Orcas 1727 W.ir 321 E. 12t 619 W.13" 835W. 51 425 E. Front 1318 W. 5e'` 231 W.11 102 E. 1515 1502 W. El vd. 2513 S. Oak 118 5. Chambers #2 721 E. 9 520 S. Peabody 1130 Water 220%4 W. >l='' 1323 McDonald #17 118 S. Chambers /K3 4012 Newell Rd. #D2 1537 W. 1D' 1715 S. E 1721 S. E 210 Dogwood P1 232 W. BIM. 731 S. Alder St. 1232 E. 4 220Y4 W. 8 611W. 13 118 S. Chambers #3 315 W. 15 609 W.12'' CUSTOMER ED. TROUBLE CALLS 'problem ti co problem found, described TV problem pro mined TV outside, customer never called back yL d ad, Don hooked up 2" VCR for them came off back of set, carded at the door k signet good outside T/ &VCR 1430 Y7.5" 331 W. 4t de 2215 S. Chase #29 125 W. Front 1508 w_ 6" 403 W. le 1125 E. 5' 101 E. 2" 808 5. Cherry 1411 Eckard PL 50516 E. 2 814 W.4 1323 McDonald #8 Z002 RESULTS Needed new TOLE' Nestled new TCLf Bad cable fittings at 1V, replaced spec* krstakd JV-A trap"' Replaced WS trap Raised replaced bad drop, g-bloclri 9ttings Replaced drop. g -bbck, idtinge Replaced Shawtime titer✓ Replaced Meantime Ref Replied drop./ Replaced channel Replaced tap t fittings on ddreli Replaced bad fittings at g2loclC Not home, possible loose fittin (never resch'd) Repaced bad Shordime'Gte Replaced bad g-block lfdtingr/ Repaired cut .500 cable-- Replaced drop. No problem found, customer says problem intermittent (has not caled back) Rid drop/' Replaced g-bbck fitting? Replaced Showtime HBO biters Repined fitting on dropriiimper, filter, bad fitting behind se1— Rehung raised torn down drop Replaced U/B trap./ Removed old trap that was blocicng chs. 17 13�' Replaced 3.nay fittings"" Repaired cut drop Repaired cut drop Replaced fitting at spitierJ Neighbor was bootlegging off their service, km/ Replaced twist en fitting bad fitting by fter" Iced Cinemax filter' No problem found, customer nevyr rated beer Ground installed, signals govdi Installed ground wire' No problem found, customer au1 call beck (hasn't) Replaced 1 trap removed midspan, replaces rerouted drop, installed g.bbck gpsund No one home, signal good outside SCR needed programming, canceled at the door .o pobiem is inside, customer wttl check set biem Mein found, TV problem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J able Communications Consultants PORT ANGELES CABLE TV TRANSFER September 16,1988 Specializing in: Franchising Refranchising Rate Increase Requests Negotiations Evaluations sus s� NOP lENP MIN 5:2ia A Evaluation of Proposed Cable Television Transfer from Port Angeles Telecable to Northland Cable Television, Inc. I. Financial Structure II. Organization III. Personnel IV. Operating Comparisons V. Other Municipal Relations VI. Recommendations 1 I. FINANCIAL STRUCTURE Northland Cable Television Inc. (NCTV) is apparently an outgrowth of Northland Communications Corporation (NCC). The parent company was formed for the purpose of organizing limited partnerships and acting as general partner in the management of cable television systems. The success in financing such arrangements is demonstrated by the amount of equity (roughly $55,000,000) raised and by the number of limited partners who have become associated with NCC over the past eight years. NCC derives its revenue largely from management fees based upon gross revenues, one -time acquisition fees from the syndication of its partnerships and cable television service income. Obviously there are or were certain tax advantages to the investors who participate in this type of syndication. NCTV, the offspring of NCC, was put together to directly own and manage certain of these partnerships and, as evidenced by their desire to acquire Port Angeles Telecable, to purchase cable systems directly from other parties. We have no direct information regarding the terms, conditions and the amount paid for Port Angeles Telecable. However, recent sales of systems with similar demographics have ranged up to $2,000 per subscriber. Without knowing specifically the source of funds to be used in this particular acquisition or even the purchase price it is difficult to project earnings and financial committment to the Port Angeles system. Traditionally cable television sales are heavily leveraged and debt service becomes a major factor in the amounts of money that may be allocated to operation and maintenance as well as capital contributions. NCTV has indicated that similar purchases have been financed through bank borrowings and cash from operations. This is not to say that the balance sheets of NCC including debt equity ratios are not quite satisfactory as a corporation on the whole, but merely to indicate that it is difficult to bring to focus the details of this particular transaction in Port Angeles. It is suggested that prior to a final approval by the City Council the City may wish to have the prospective franchisee fill out financial pro formas such as those attached to this report. Other than this specific detailed information, NCTV has been very generous in supplying a great deal of financial information which gives testimony to the parent company growth and solid financial base. It may very well be that NCTV has not itself gotten 2 to the point to these specifics in the case of Port Angeles. However, in a "worst case" scenario, it would appear that the Port Angeles cable franchise ordinance gives ample protection to the City in the unlikely event of a collapse of the financial structure upon which NCTV is based. II. ORGANIZATION In the course of preparing this evaluation we interviewed Mr. Steve Friedman, Divisional Vice President under whose purview the Port Angeles operation will fall. There are two divisional vice presidents and the western division seven regional managers that report to him. Each regional manager has responsibility for systems totalling anywhere from six to fifteen thousand subscribers. Mr. Friedman indicated that "as of now" Mr. Vern Kehele will be retained as a regional manager. As NCTV has indicated in the information supplied to the City, the operating organization is largely decentralized. This is underlined by the fact that there are apparently only three management officials in its Seattle headquarters. The Port Angeles acquisition will enlarge its operations in Washington where it now owns two very small operations in Camamo and Bainbridge Islands as well as another small system purchased from Northwest Entertainment Network in the Puget Sound area. III. PERSONNEL All of the executives connected with NCTV have solid background in the cable industry or other financial and marketing enterprises. There appears no reason to doubt the impressive qualifications of the management team that NCTV has put together. Through our own knowledge as well as information obtained from cable industry peers, all members of management have held the positions indicated in the background data furnished to Port Angeles and are highly regarded in the cable industry. According to Kari Spencer of the Washington State Cable Association (WSCA) Northland has recently joined that group and is a member in good standing. We know of no criminal nor civil actions in which Northland is involved. IV. OPERATING COMPARISONS Northland (NCTV) has approximately 120,000 subscribers spread through 73 systems largely in comparatively small operations in the 3 1 1 Carolinas, Texas, Northern California, Oregon and, as mentioned, in Washington. It must be emphasized that while virtually all of these systems are individually smaller than Port Angeles, collectively, they add up to rather large numbers. Northland is ranked 60th in size of the Multiple Systems Operators (MSO's); still, of course, tiny compared to such giants as Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI) with 5,000,000 subscribers. In spite of the overall numbers, NCTV with its smaller community emphasis can not achieve the economies of scale that are enjoyed by more concentrated operations (a Seattle or San Diego). This is not to say that its operations will not be profitable; almost any cable operation is a "cash cow" but, that its relative degree of profitability and hence its resource allocation will be relatively smaller and the technology and capital involvement to Port Angeles Telecable may be less than if the cable system were acquired by one of the giants of the industry. The counter to this, of course, is that by the same token, it should be more responsive to individual community needs. Many statistical operational comparisons are somewhat meaningless. Some give an indication, at least, of the marketing abilities of the cable operator. For example, the ratio of basic subscribers to premium (Pay TV) is 42% for Northland compared to about 47% nationally. These numbers are close enough to infer that the Northland people do an about average job in this respect. Qualitive comparisons are even more difficult. While the 24 hour standby service proposed in their letter of September 6, 1988 is somewhat greater than called for in the cable television franchise, it is certainly not sensational and no more than most other cable operators provide. In our brief discussion with the Northland regional manager he gave no indication whether or not the upgrade to 330 MHz and beyond (giving greater channel capacity) as called for in the Ordinance and referred to in their letter would be achieved by an upgrade (spacing of amplifiers and some additional hardware) or through a complete rebuild (changing the cable in the distribution system). While it probably is too early for Northland to even know internally this eventually should be a concern of the City Council. As you also know, the "operating plans" outlined in Northland's letter are rather vague and deal in platitudes rather than in specifics as to be expected under the circumstances. It may be that the City will wish to ask for more details at some point (say three months after acquisition) to have a file reference on these points of customer service. As an aside, the present franchise with Port Angeles Telecable calls for a franchise fee of 4% for the first 5 years and then elevating to 5 If the City Council wished to amend this clause, negotiated with Port Angeles Telecable, to 5% as of the start of the transfer, in our opinion, Northland would agree to such a rate (comparable to most communities in which they hold a franchise). V. OTHER MUNICIPAL RELATIONS We have contacted several communities who have granted cable television franchises to Northland. Of the six cities given as references we were able to speak to the City employee involved in four instances. All comments were favorable, as might be expected, to Northland. In addition we attempted to contact other locations than those suggested by NCTV. Two of the cities we called were going through a franchise renewal process with Northland and therefore were reluctant to give out much information. However, we did not get the impression that there were any negatives involved in the relationship with the cable franchisee. Another community gave a very favorable recommendation. Details of these interviews are available in our back -up files. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS It should be noted that the entire cable industry is in the process of transition. The purchase of small cable systems by medium size operators (like Northland) is becoming more and more common. In turn mid -size operators are being bought by large scale MSO's. The comparison to little fish being eaten by bigger fish is not an altogether unfair comparison. The day of the one locale independent cable operator may well be over. It appears that Northland is well financed, well managed, with an excellent track record. Although the buying and selling of cable television systems has risen to values not substantiated by earnings ratios this is symptomatic of an evolving industry. Cities in general may as a result find themselves facing the transfer process more than once during the term of their cable franchise. It is, of course, impossible to predict the future performance of any company. The City of Port Angeles has a good solid franchise document; this is the best sort 5 of security a city may have no matter who eventually operates the cable system. Although our firm holds certain reservations regarding an unqualified endorsement of the prospective franchisee, our reservations lie not with negative information but rather of the lack of complete information. We realize that there are both time and practical factors to be considered in attempting to obtain a more complete picture of the proposed transaction. However within these constraints we recommend City Council approval of the proposed transfer. We suggest, as we have indicated, that some additional financial data be obtained from NCTV. This should not necessarily be made contingent upon approval but at least should be requested so that the City may have at least a partial yardstick to measure "reasonable costs" of the cable operator as a condition of renewal under the federal Cable Act. 6 MN I MN OM MI MI I I I E MNIIIMEN MI NM PRO FORMA ANTICIPATED GROWTH Basic Services: Total Ending Subscribers Total Ending Add'l Outlets (Disconnects /Cancels) Disconnects Percent Penetration Percent Churn Bulk Commercial Ending Subs FM Ending Subscribers Premium Subscribers Service 1HBO 2 SHOWTIME 3 DISNEY 4 CINEMAX 5 Sub -total Pay per -view Total Pay Subscribers Pay Penetration ANTICIPATED GROWTH (0001 Years- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 IIIIII OM MO MI MO NM MI MI INIII MI MI MI I MI NM NM ANCILLARY SERVICES AVERAGE SUBSCRIBERS (units) Total Basic Subscribers FM Bulk Commercial ANTICIPATED GROWTH 0001 Years- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MO IM OM MI MO INNI IIMIIMM INNI E MI MS BASIC SERVICE Basic Add? Outlets Sub -total Senior Citizen Discounts Bulk Commercial FM Other Total Basic PAY SERVICES Services 1 HBO 2 SHOWTIME 3 DISNEY 4 CINEMAX Sub -total Pay per -view Total INSTALLATIONS ANCILLARY Advertising Security Institutional Other Total Ancillary Total Projected Revenues PROJECTED REVENIJES (0001 Years- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 I M M M M MMINIM MI M M M NM N PLANT (TECH) EXPENSES Total Payroll Overtime Employee Benefits Converter Repair Maintenance Material Operating Supplies Pole Rental Other Rental Power Vehicle Repair Gas and Oil Property Tax Other Maintenance Capitalized Total Plant Expenses OTHER Payroll tax Construction Labor Freight Programming License Pay TV Microwave Service Equipment Repair Uniforms Self Insurance Total Other OPERATING EXPENSES (000) Years- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10