Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTelecommunications Board - Minutes - 06/08/2004TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD MEETING MINUTES ***June 8, 2004*** *** 6:00 PM *** Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein Staff Liaison: Liz Stroh Chairperson: Curt Cramer Phone: 482-9822 (H) Members Present: Larry Bontempo, David Heiberg, Herb Saperstone, Curt Cramer, Chip Cushman, Robert Reichenberger Absent: Tim Tillson Guest: Ken Fellman of Kissinger and Fellman, outside counsel for franchise renewal project. City Staff Gary Gordier, Kraig Ecton, Eric Dahlgren, Liz Stroh Chair Curt Cramer called the meeting to order at 6:00 Minutes: Herb Saperstone made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by David Heiberg Motion was passed unanimously. Franchise Needs Assessment Herb Saperstone asked how the recommendations in the report regarding an Institutional network might be implemented in Fort Collins. Ken explained how other City's have used an I -Net, recognizing that the City has a slightly different scenario because of the PRPA fiber loop to which most Fort Collins governmental and educational organizations are connected. Chip asked if Comcast had seen a copy and suggested that one be sent, since some of the survey information would give them important information regarding customer satisfaction. Herb asked about the term of the franchise. He explained that the Board is interested in a shorter term. Ken responded that Comcast and most cable companies usually ask for the maximum length. From the city's perspective — if some of the more significant requests are not included in the franchise, the term is usually much shorter. 07/14/04 Ken explained the process for the informal review, and the formal review. Sometimes cities will grant a short contract if the parties cannot come to an agreement. Chip asked about cities banding together to have a better negotiating posture. Ken explained that in the Denver region, there is a consortium called The Greater Metropolitan Telecommunications Consortium (GMTC). The group formed in the mid- 90's and have used model franchises since. Ken also mentioned that Comcast doesn't like this approach, and often lobbies cities individually. This approach can also present problems if the franchises don't come due at the same time. Some cities also have some special requirements, and others do not, so a model franchise might or might not be beneficial, depending on the circumstances. Herb asked about franchise fees, and how the fees are determined. Ken explained that a franchise agreement contains a definition of gross revenues, and that cities typically ask for the maximum allowed under FCC regulations — which is 5%. Some revenues are excluded — particularly revenue from high speed internet services. This is due to a ruling by the courts that data is not a "cable service". The other revenue source that Comcast usually wants to exclude is launch fees. This is the money paid to Cable companies to promote the programs on their system. Comcast's stance it that those fee should not be included in the definition of gross revenues. Given that franchise fees are for use of City rights of way, Herb wondered why revenues from data related services could not be included. Ken explained about State law 10-96 which does not allow cities in Colorado to impose franchise requirements on telecommunications services. The Board discussed the recommendations previously made to City Council. The Chair asked if members had any changes to suggest. Members agreed that the recommendations would stand, with the addition of a fourth, that of Customer Service Standards. Ken explained that the FCC had customer services standards, but that cities were allowed to have standards that were stricter if desired. The Board expressed interest in working with staff on customer service standards. Ken explained the plan was to draw up the customer service standards separately from the franchise agreement. Council would adopt standards at the same time as the franchise agreement ordinance. The standards can then more easily be amended should changes be needed. In response to a question about customer service standards for high speed internet access, Ken said the question is still open at the Federal level. He also explained that any customer service standards for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) would fall under the review of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) David Heiberg asked about recent trends in negotiations with Comcast. Ken explained that Comcast is reluctant to do an a la carte system because the per subscriber cost varies between programs. Comcast is also opposed to Public Access because it uses bandwidth that could be used for revenue generating services. The company is also opposed to requirements that would increase the subscriber bill, like PEG access fees. Chip asked about including "state of the art" language regarding technical capacity. He pointed out that Comcast is likely to improve systems in response to market demands. 07/14/04 Ken explained that the company would tend to put new technology in larger markets, and without provisions in the franchise, the upgrades might be delayed for this area.. Herb also wanted to include some requirements that would have Comcast continue to support existing governmental and education programming. Ken explained that a recent change in the law restricts what city's can ask for in this area. Cable companies are required to provide bandwidth, and any other provisions are based on terms of the franchise that vary from city to city. The extensive use of the current governmental and educational channels provides a sound basis for franchise requirements in that area Chip asked about getting another company to come to Fort Collins. Ken explained that about the only way to do that is to deny the franchise, which would lead immediately to litigation. Curt asked about Qwest getting into the cable business. Ken's information on that topic was that Qwest decided not to do it as it would not be profitable. Other possibilities for alternative cable service include "limited area" franchises where companies provide all telecommunications services in a new development. There are also OVS companies that can provide cable service, but must make 2/3 of their bandwidth available. Curt also brought up that the technical report in the Needs Assessment noted that the numbers of houses served are higher than the standard. Curt was concerned that this would result in slower service. Ken mentioned that other franchises have specified the number of houses per node. Ken briefed the Board about the next steps in the negotiation process. Two to three half day meetings will be set with Comcast to review the proposal and eliminate as many issues as possible. By the end of summer, the more difficult issues will have been identified. He explained that the Board will be advised of progress, and when and if major disputes arise, the Board will be asked for their input. Curt asked Liz to contact Council Member Kastein, the Council Liaison, and ask for a meeting date sometime in August so the Board can discuss this further. Public Access Herb explained that he and Chip had met, but had not yet been in contact with the citizen group interested in Public access. Ken advised the Board that a non-profit to run the Public Access organization was the best approach. The City would want the right to audit financial records, but better not to have council members on the Board of the non profit because of potential First Amendment issues Adjourn Chip Cushman made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Herb Saperstone. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:30. Date Staff 0 07/13/04